Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#91

Post by 908B64B197 »

stephen_g wrote: post #36
rasengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main reasons that ICE believes they can exert this authority is because the .com/.net TLD namespace is owned and operated by Verisign, a US company. Further, the ICANN namespace is owned and operated by ICANN, a US company who, in fact, is also under the jurisdiction of attorney generals of California state [1]. As long as the namespace remains under the control of a centralized authority like the US, this…

Yeah, which seems ridiculous. As a first step, ICANN should be changed to some kind of international non-profit (I'm not even sure how you do that - do you just register it in Switzerland?). Since they are not under a country code TLD, I think it really makes sense migrate .com, .net and .org to be 'international' TLDs (I think many people internationality basically already consider them to effectively be so) and US…

> Then also, I really think all .gov, .mil and .edu and the other US-only TLDs should be phased out (they could just become redirects to .gov.us, .mil.us etc.). Having those TLDs as US-only just smacks of American exceptionalism

If other countries don't like it... why connect and use an American network? Why not build their own (and foot the research bill!).

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#92

Post by log4shelled »

stephen_g wrote: post #36
rasengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main reasons that ICE believes they can exert this authority is because the .com/.net TLD namespace is owned and operated by Verisign, a US company. Further, the ICANN namespace is owned and operated by ICANN, a US company who, in fact, is also under the jurisdiction of attorney generals of California state [1]. As long as the namespace remains under the control of a centralized authority like the US, this…

Yeah, which seems ridiculous. As a first step, ICANN should be changed to some kind of international non-profit (I'm not even sure how you do that - do you just register it in Switzerland?). Since they are not under a country code TLD, I think it really makes sense migrate .com, .net and .org to be 'international' TLDs (I think many people internationality basically already consider them to effectively be so) and US…

No post body was provided.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#93

Post by hda2 »

That's why we offer .onion addresses for our services (websites, APIs, everything). These addresses connect customers to tor/onion services hosted on our property. Customers who need to keep disruption at a minimum are advised to implement tor access as a fallback.

I firmly believe that automated DMCA-style processes (and other slow, guilty-until-proven-innocent schemes) are going to become more prevalent around the world. Defending against all of them in a timely manner will become impossible for all but the biggest of players. Smaller players will have to use services like Tor to have any semblance of reliability.

Disclaimer: We're a registered llc (not US-based), and all our activities are 100% legitimate in most jurisdictions including the US.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#94

Post by saagarjha »

ramesh31 wrote: post #88

I honestly can't think of a better steward. Believing that independent organizations can continue to main an infrastructure that supports trillions of dollars of economic activity is absurd. And regardless of politics, the US has the most stable and trusted rule of law in the world.

Not at all, and I say this as an American. I mean we’ve had several protests in just the last year about our legal system’s inability to function correctly.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#95

Post by simplestats »

f0xtrot wrote: post #85
biglost wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About that, I don’t know why nor how but, does starlink needs authorization for all the countries their satellites fly by or only the usa? Is it becasuse the satellites are too “up” in the sky in ot her countries?

PIRACY!! It looks as the same as international waters. thought it was around 40-50 miles from dry ground. but idk edit: (hope someone vouches for you else your free game.)

But if you entered a country's airspace or waters without permission you'd be arrested or worse. This is more like preventing everyone from doing things that are illegal for Americans too. Meanwhile, if you operate legally, they are not claiming any control.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#96

Post by kube-system »

moralestapia wrote: post #56

I always had this question and perhaps someone here can shine some light. It is my understanding that under US copyright law if you own a trademark you have some grounds to sue someone else that may be using/squatting "your" domain in order to acquire it. What would happen, though, if the owner of the domain does not live in the US, does not operate in the US, nor has any other thing to do there aside from owning a .…

Minor tangentially related quibble: copyright law and trademark law are entirely separate. The rules by which they work are different.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#97

Post by walrus01 »

jiveturkey wrote: post #27
walrus01 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yet another alternate root DNS that has maybe 0.001% of install base on the global scale of client devices with browsers? yeah okay seen it for 20 years now...

wow, that's generous. more like 1x10-12, if that .001% would be absolutely enormous, and the actual start of a thing. the design and use case of it looks laughable to me. however, it does spark the imagination.

yeah that was overly charitable, reality would be more like 0.00000001% of client devices. considering we now have several billion internet using cellphones and people globally.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#98

Post by kube-system »

Your registration in the DNS is always subject to the policies, procedures, security, and legal environment of the controlling registry.

This is one reason I always recommend avoiding obscure ccTLDs, especially if you have no presence there.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#99

Post by GreenWatermelon »

908B64B197 wrote: post #91
stephen_g wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, which seems ridiculous. As a first step, ICANN should be changed to some kind of international non-profit (I'm not even sure how you do that - do you just register it in Switzerland?). Since they are not under a country code TLD, I think it really makes sense migrate .com, .net and .org to be 'international' TLDs (I think many people internationality basically already consider them to effectively be so) and US…

> Then also, I really think all .gov, .mil and .edu and the other US-only TLDs should be phased out (they could just become redirects to .gov.us, .mil.us etc.). Having those TLDs as US-only just smacks of American exceptionalism If other countries don't like it... why connect and use an American network? Why not build their own (and foot the research bill!).

The internet isn't a box stored somewhere in America, it's the collection of computers connected together with wires.

They can change protocols, but that would just lead to a fractured ecosystem fir the benefit of no one, American or otherwise.

Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)

#100

Post by DarylZero »

jedberg wrote: post #39
DarylZero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then the root servers can still be used to censor domains by removing them.

They aren't all in the US. Right now they remove a .com by telling Verisign, a US company, to change the registration for the .com. Since Verisign is the only way to change a .com, it works. Many root servers operate outside of the US. If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses, then even if they blocked the US roots the others would still have it. Even today if all the US root servers go off-line every sys…

> If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses

But it's not -- the root servers are -- by premise here. Premise is we assume zero config results in ICANN root servers having authority. My point is that given this premise, blockchain is ineffective. You are introducing ICANN as informational MITM and censor node in between user and blockchain validation.

True, you are excluding USA, if your only goal is exclude USA then this accomplishes that goal, but if your goal is censorship-proof then this is not it.

Post reply on HN