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

191–200 of 550 posts

Re: .name Termination

#191

Post by xur17 »

aliasxneo wrote: post #160
theK wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard of DNTLS, thanks for sharing. I skimmed the Website and am a bit uncertain what the ai angle is. Shouldnt naming be, well, just naming?

Yeah, the website is a holdover from when we were pitching AI VCs a few months ago. We quickly determined that the whole system is now "Cancer Capital" (see the other front page HN thread) and have pivoted to just bootstrapping from a close syndicate of like minded individuals. We plan to update the website this month, sorry it's a bit behind. In short, AI identities were just a happy accident that comes with the sys…

Do you have a brief explanation of what DNTLS is that you could post here?

Re: .name Termination

#192

Post by TZubiri »

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.

I don't get the difference. If I acquire the y domain and make it work as a subdomain broker, it's the same thing no?

There is no subdomain/TLD bit

Re: .name Termination

#193

Post by dpoloncsak »

xp84 wrote: post #188
layer8 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can say, as a SysAdmin, I have been taught and tell my users to check the domain to verify a website is real.

It's a strange edgecase that the owner of John.Doe.com does not need to own Doe.com

In every other case that I know about, to own the Joe subdomain of Doe.com, you would need to own Doe.com

edit: I guess I've gotten so used to the government 3LDs I just don't even see them anymore, or just see something like .co.uk or .edu.us as a TLD by itself, but yeah those exist too. Still the exception to the rule

Re: .name Termination

#194

Post by xp84 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #66
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…

I'm surprised they don't just do that, and maybe even to go a little further, disallow renewals so you can phase people out and reclaim domains you can sell.

Whether disallowing renewals or terminating them tomorrow, there's still the same core problems, only the date of the offense changes: (1) seizing people's names that they've established, breaking innumerable things including email and server hostnames, and (2) the possible resale of the 2LD fraser.com to a third party who will be free to do malicious things like reading OP's email, redirecting his traffic, or extorting him, to sell continued access at any price demanded.

Re: .name Termination

#195

Post by Macha »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #174
notahacker wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to register fraser.geek so a very small number of OpenNIC users can access that new URL doesn't really solve the OP's problem with his family's long-established URLs disappearing and their emails being directed to whichever scammer buys up the fraser.name domain.

That isn't the correct problem. The 3rd level domain is going away, which can be reconqured via OpenNIC and mass re-adoption. There will surely be new problems, but owning will not be among those problems.

The problem is everyone else (such as email providers...) recognising your ownership.

Re: .name Termination

#196

Post by layer8 »

xp84 wrote: post #188
layer8 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, they can’t outright prevent the ambiguity, but much fewer people will go to the trouble of establishing such subdomains when the option isn’t directly offered by the registrar.

This is my theory because, a priori, 3LDs should be more profitable than 2LDs, because with 3LDs John Doe and Jane Doe don’t have to compete over doe.name, but instead can each separately purchase john.doe.name and jane.doe.name. Apparently, however, that’s not a benefit of 3LDs in practice, which leads me to conclude that john-doe.name and jane-doe.name just sell better.

Re: .name Termination

#197

Post by indymike »

akersten wrote: post #25

It kind of seems like an insane TLD structure to begin with, right? I always thought .co.uk was bad (you're just pinning yourself to whoever owns the .co. part, but at least browsers have some suffix list where you can't, I don't know, hijack some login cookie for all of .co.). Joe Smith and John Smith can independently register joe.smith.name and john.smith.name, do browsers have a wildcard suffix list for the 2nd l…

> It kind of seems like an insane TLD structure to begin with, right?

It's been around for years. I seem to remember this issue coming up around 2001 where originally .name was for third level registration (i.e. john.doe.name) and changed to second level it a few years later and caused some problems... https://publicsuffix.org/ talks about it in light of architectural limitations of domain names.

> can Joe set a cookie on all of .smith.name?

That can happen. I seem to remember ancient browsers made it so .name (and other non-generic TLDs) required three periods. I think country code domains and new generic TLDS caused the browsers to change it.

It's pretty screwed up, but a lot of the people with .name domains have had them for a very long time. Sad to see them all lose their identity online that way.

Re: .name Termination

#198

Post by dbt00 »

dpoloncsak wrote: post #193
xp84 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can say, as a SysAdmin, I have been taught and tell my users to check the domain to verify a website is real. It's a strange edgecase that the owner of John.Doe.com does not need to own Doe.com In every other case that I know about, to own the Joe subdomain of Doe.com, you would need to own Doe.com edit: I guess I've gotten so used to the government 3LDs I just don't even see them anymore, or just see something lik…

That is definitely not true. There are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of well known domains that do this. .co.uk is a very common example.

Re: .name Termination

#199

Post by gapan »

dpoloncsak wrote: post #193
xp84 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can say, as a SysAdmin, I have been taught and tell my users to check the domain to verify a website is real. It's a strange edgecase that the owner of John.Doe.com does not need to own Doe.com In every other case that I know about, to own the Joe subdomain of Doe.com, you would need to own Doe.com edit: I guess I've gotten so used to the government 3LDs I just don't even see them anymore, or just see something lik…

There are still exceptions to this like .co.uk and many others.

Re: .name Termination

#200

Post by traceroute66 »

gertrunde wrote: post #175
traceroute66 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's so dangerous about it? Implying lack of trust in `co.uk` Implying `co.uk` may suffer the same fate at `.name` Complete FUD.

You're absolutely right, when it's Nominet's actions that actually inspire a lack of trust in .co.uk, given they've been a bit of a hot mess since the early 2010's-ish. ;) (Edit: although I should add that I'm hopeful that things have improved there over the last few years).

> given they've been a bit of a hot mess since the early 2010's-ish

No.

Oversimplified summary:

There was a period around 2010 when the management at the time wanted to follow a more commercial route with various unrelated "investments".

Nominet members made it impeccably clear in a very loud manner to management that it would not be tolerated.

Management insisted on a vote which they inevitably lost.

Management departed.

TL;DR Don't piss off Nominet members

Post reply on HN