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

321–330 of 551 posts

Re: .name Termination

#321

Post by teravor »

aliasxneo wrote: post #132

This is why I am building DNTLS. These organizations no longer deserve our trust and they have inadvertently gained too much power over the last two decades of massive internet expansion. Names need to be fully owned by individuals and a shared, decentralized trust system must be in place for resolution. The more I see actions like this, the more convinced I am that a solution is long overdue.

the only real way to have a decentralized domain system is something like https://github.com/pubky/pkarr

but you lose the ability to have short domains.

also until such a time that pkarr is widely adopted, you are better off using .onion domains anyway. it becomes a question of requiring custom DNS client vs. Tor browser.

both approaches use a DHT.

Re: .name Termination

#323

Post by fc417fc802 »

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 public suffix list is a half assed bandaid over a fundamentally broken system.

Re: .name Termination

#324

Post by NewJazz »

zamadatix wrote: post #290
arjie wrote: post #50

We were rescued from that dot org scam by the fact that ICANN is a California non profit. I wonder if the AG can lean on them again. This is an outrageous thing to do.

MagicMoonlight was [dead]ed for not knowing what "dot org scam" refers to. Since I can't reply there right now and it's not reasonable to expect everyone to know what this refers to: ICANN, a 501(c)(3), proposed to remove the price cap on .org registration, commonly used for non profits, so PIR, the 501(c)(3) registrar for .org, could then announce it planned to sell .org operations to private equity investment firm…

MM looks to be shadowbanned, I don't think anyone downed/flagged their comment.

Re: .name Termination

#325

Post by jl6 »

I can only assume somebody was asleep on the job when this scheme was approved, because the outcome is in direct contradiction to ICANN’s mission statement:

> Its enduring mission is to ensure the stable, secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-icann

Arbitrary termination of service is not stability.

Enabling name hijacking is not security.

The answer cannot be a rival name scheme based on decentralization or crypto or whatever. Those are never going to help normal non-wizard users. The answer has to be to make the regulators do their job.

Re: .name Termination

#326

Post by NewJazz »

donmcronald wrote: post #293
arjie wrote: post #50

We were rescued from that dot org scam by the fact that ICANN is a California non profit. I wonder if the AG can lean on them again. This is an outrageous thing to do.

> ICANN is a California non profit I wonder how long that'll last. If the regulators in Califonrnia keep forcing them to act in the public's interest, won't they just move to a more favorable jurisdiction?

This crossed my mind too. At least such a move could serve as an indication to the international community that ICANN is not a good steward of name and number resources. If they're paying attention. I know our (the US) governance is full of crap like this.

Re: .name Termination

#327

Post by brirec »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #314
strenholme wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You say "registered" to you as though this was via an official registrar but surely you mean that someone rented ca.us and decided on their own to lease out subdomains to people? (Aside, I always see "owned" and "bought" but you can only ever "lease" under the ICANN system as the present situation so clearly demonstrates.)

Historically, xx.us (where xx is a two letter state code) domains have been owned* by the named US state, which then would issue subdomains on top. I believe this was originally planned and set up by ICANN themselves.

*: I realize that “owned” is a loaded word here, but (1) I’m referring to a registrar/issuer, which makes it yet more complicated as to how much “ownership” (de facto or otherwise) a given entity may have, and (2) I really don’t give a fuck about pedantic word choice if the meaning is unambiguous.

Re: .name Termination

#328

Post by p4bl0 »

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.…

> 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.

Yes. I've been asking VeriSign for this for years, and they always refused.

Re: .name Termination

#329

Post by dgoldstein0 »

dhosek wrote: post #204
marcosdumay wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is (or was for a long time, IDK) a strongly recommended practice from ICANN. I imagine nearly all countries to do that.

There end up being some weird edge cases where there are some countries which have both the equivalent of .co.uk but also allow registrations directly under the two-letter country code as well. .mx is one such case where most business are, e.g., costco.com.mx, but it’s also possible to register directly under .mx as well so Toyota Mexico is toyota.mx and not toyota.com.mx (the latter is registered, and ostensibly to…

This isn't so bad as .com.mx and .mx should be on the public suffix list then.

But letting arbitrary customers take arbitrary 3 level domains, and others take 2 level domains, seems like a mistake as it's not very reasonable for every 3LD customer to put the 2LD on the public suffix list, but mixing 3LD and 2LD registrations means you can't public suffix *.name.

Seems the whole idea of having both was always misguided.

Re: .name Termination

#330

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> the right thing they should do

Can someone explain why a product "registered and paid for until 2040" can be unilaterally voided like this without compensation?

Post reply on HN