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

271–280 of 553 posts

Re: .name Termination

#271

Post by [deleted] »

dbt00 wrote: post #198
dpoloncsak wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: .name Termination

#272

Post by koeliga »

jonhohle wrote: post #184

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 nightm…

The risk of losing your big email account is higher than losing your domain. Furthermore, if you happen to lose your domain, it will in most cases be easier to recover than a restricted account.

Re: .name Termination

#273

Post by p4bl0 »

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…

Another thing that should be obvious and yet they refuse to do: when there is a single third-level customer for a given second-level, offer them a way to get the second level domain. I've been asking VeriSign this for 15+ years, they always said no, even if at some point they confirmed that there were no other third-level than mine under that second-level domain. They're insane and should not be in charge.

Re: .name Termination

#274

Post by strenholme »

davkan wrote: post #215
dbt00 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can’t think of any prominent ones outside of country code domains.

I remember I had beach.santa-cruz.ca.us at one point registered to me. I owned beach.santa-cruz.ca.us, someone else owned santa-cruz.ca.us, yet someone else owned ca.us, and I believe Network Solutions took care of .us at the time.

Re: .name Termination

#275

Post by zamadatix »

xp84 wrote: post #194
giancarlostoro wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extort…

There's one less core problem: those who just bought/renewed their domain e.g. yesterday are fucked out of both their money and forced to migrate sooner than they could have reasonably planned for. People's who registrations expire and they are unable to renew is a very different level of unfairness and inconvenience.

In either case, the security concern should be directly addressed.

Re: .name Termination

#276

Post by strenholme »

amiga386 wrote: post #259
dpoloncsak wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hello sysadmin. Good luck navigating the internet. What you should know, and what your browser does know and automatically applies cookie policy and colouring your URL bar, is the Public Suffix List: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Suffix_List It will let you know that, for example, one does not need to own .co.uk to own the subdomain foo.co.uk.

The .name mess is not in the public suffix list.

https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/issues/2306 for more discussion.

Re: .name Termination

#277

Post by dpoloncsak »

veltas wrote: post #233
dpoloncsak wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yet that is a problem the owner of such a domain has freely entered into by buying that domain, it's their right to keep it despite this apparent problem, if they wish.

Understood, and .name isn't being used enough in business to worry about 'the effect it will have on my users'. Just pointing out that it doesn't work like the 'norm' (although I guess it's not quite as unique as I thought, either)

Re: .name Termination

#278

Post by ethanhawksley »

wiether wrote: post #266
xp84 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By Big Email are you just referring to the biggest providers (e.g. Google and Microsoft)? or is there another meaning?

If they're talking about Google or Microsoft, putting more trust in the worst tech companies than in the TLD of your country seems crazy to me.

I think it's pretty reasonable. The percentage of email accounts Google & Microsoft terminate seems far far lower than the chance I misconfigure my email or lose my domain

Re: .name Termination

#279

Post by p4bl0 »

joemi wrote: post #235
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.

Was it even possible to register just a second level .name domain name? It sounds like it wasn't, so therefore no one would be using john-doe.name and there'd be no ambiguity.

Not at the very beginning, but then it became possible.

Re: .name Termination

#280

Post by hellcow »

aliasxneo wrote: post #257
xur17 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does alice "own" alice.dntls after she registers it? If so, how do you prevent name squating?

Names are not able to be traded, so it's first come first serve. It's impossible to completely defeat name squatting, but you can make it less enticing. In the above case, Alice can "sell" her name to Bob on some aftermarket but the only way to do so is by transferring the cryptographic material. This is fraught with issues, especially considering once Bob has the keys he has no obligation to pay. Names are valid for…

Seems like you could use an escrow to defeat this and sell domain names safely and easily.
Post reply on HN