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

.name Termination

neil.fraser.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 559 posts

Re: .name Termination

#181

Post by [deleted] »

wormius wrote: post #167
dvt wrote: post #158

I freaked out for a second because I've owned `dvt.name` for like 15 years. `.name` is not getting terminated, so it's important to be precise here. The third-level x.y.name (where you're the `x`) is getting terminated, and the respective `y.name` domains are going to be released. Still a crappy thing for people, but it does not affect owned second-level domains.

There should be a conflict resolution to gracefully degrade the third level to 2nd level when there is no competing name on the second level. But I didn't think about the 1st level competitors. There'd still need a mechanism to resolve that... 1. First come first serve? (e.g. whoever registered a y.name first, whether x is bob or sue is determined by the earliest registrant on record) 2. Lottery/random selection? 3.…

[deleted]

Re: .name Termination

#183

Post by traceroute66 »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #178
traceroute66 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody owns the .co part of .co.uk. If you buy foo.co.uk, that is registered with Nominet, who are the registry for .uk. Yup. The original statement was dangerous FUD which should be urgently corrected.

Yes, but you have to admit that the existence of these SLDs (like co.uk) is always going to be a point of confusion for anyone with a basic knowledge of how the domain hierarchy _usually_ works. Needing to be familiar with all the special cases (like the VERY special case of x.y.name which I previously knew nothing about) kind of ruins everything and introduces yet more security risk.

> but you have to admit that the existence of these SLDs (like co.uk)

I'm sorry, what ? Admit ? Confusion ?

In the case of .co.uk it has been around since 1996. HN is a technical forum, most people here should be well aware it is a serious SLD. I honestly can't believe it even needs clarifying.

Hell, if you use AWS Route 53 you'll see they use co.uk as one of their nameserver suffixes[1].

[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/SO...

Re: .name Termination

#184

Post by jonhohle »

One of the reasons I stick with Big Email for my primary email is cases similar to this. If I host email and lose the domain one day, I’ve lost two factor on a thousand different services (the single factor on some). Big Email’s policy is to not reissue my address, should I lose it or die.

The .name scenario is even worse. One domain gives you access to tens of thousands of users email. It seems like a privacy nightmare.

I’m not sure how future auth and privacy will work, but my child lost a tracfone phone and some mixup had separated it from my account. There was no way to recover the number. If that was my personal phone, how difficult would it be to restore banking, medical, and government access to things that assume I’ll always have that number.

Doing the same with personal email seems like too big of a risk.

Re: .name Termination

#186

Post by bityard »

febusravenga wrote: post #71
decimalenough wrote: post #52

I've had a .name domain forever and I had no idea first.last.name was even a thing, meaning that it was possible to register this without owning last.name. That said, my domain is simply unusual.name, and everybody in my family has email addresses in the form first@unusual.name. So this is a no-op for me, and I gather www.unusual.name will also continue to work, since I own the 2nd level outright.

This is silly question, but is your family managing trust in you as lone guy - cousin, father, brother - having potentially access to all their emails? I feel that I more trust some corpo (Google, etc) that one particular person. I don't imagine setup where you can effictevely guarantee them full privacy.

I manage the email accounts for the others in my household because it's free for them and I'm happy to do it. Plus, they trust me more than they trust a random tech company. Maybe that is not a universal thing among all families or parts of the world.

Re: .name Termination

#187

Post by xp84 »

I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that this is the most careless, disruptive change to anything to do with DNS or internet names I have ever seen.

> "will increase efficiency for the operation of the .name TLD."

What a preposterous excuse -- especially for something already up and running. Sounds like they probably want to change the backend in some way - or adopt some kind of off-the-shelf software - which doesn't jive so well with this unique TLD, and they figure "Ehh, fuck 'em, let's just pull the plug on these tens of thousands of people."

Re: .name Termination

#188

Post by xp84 »

layer8 wrote: post #171
nneonneo wrote: post #62

It seems like the right thing they should do is discontinue new registrations but continue to honour existing ones (+ continuing to reserve any 2LD that has a 3LD registered on top). It’s a bit insane that they can decide to just terminate all existing 3LD registrations. One would hope that they’d at least continue to reserve the 2LDs for some period to avoid domain squatting, but this isn’t mentioned in the proposal…

Maybe they want to avoid the ambiguity between john.doe.name versus john-doe.name , and I assume they prefer the latter scheme because it probably sells better. Nevertheless, discontinuing existing domains is disgraceful.

Even that doesn't pass basic scrutiny. The same ambiguity can and always will exist with tim-apple.com and tim.apple.com - there's nothing here that needs fixing.

Re: .name Termination

#189

Post by TZubiri »

I wonder if this could constitute a violationiof article 6 of the UN declaration of human rights.

It has been established that national identifiers are protected by it, and a domain works as a sort of international identifier, in this case a personal one.

No one is obligated to give you a domain, but by contracting an obligation to provide that identifier until 2040, they would at least be liable for those damages, but there's an argument that depriving you of an identifier already granted is a more fundamental violation of a right to a name, an identifier and recordkeeping of them.

Re: .name Termination

#190

Post by traceroute66 »

akersten wrote: post #172
traceroute66 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ok, co.uk was perhaps a bad example, because it's owned by the same registry as the TLD, but perhaps there are other 2nd level TLDs where that is not the case. My point is both that it's hard to tell, and more broadly why would anyone want their domain to be tacked on to some 3rd level subscript anyway, when there's so many plain top level domains available. Surely most of us (present company excluded perhaps) do not…

> My point is both that it's hard to tell,

Its not hard to tell for things like ".uk" or other serious suffixes.

It only (maybe) becomes hard(er) to tell for all the vanity ccTLDs that came along in the 2000s. But even then 10 seconds on WHOIS and Google should fix any doubt.

> about the reverence of `co.uk`

What are you on about ? Lots of other countries do it too. Japan is one example given already here, but there are dozens. It is very common practice for country tlds.

Post reply on HN