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

351–360 of 555 posts

Re: .name Termination

#351

Post by ShakataGaNai »

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.

Yea. Super confused.

I have myname .name - so I thought that was going away. Granted I barely use it, but still it would be annoying. I didn't recall there were 3rd level domains there.

Re: .name Termination

#352

Post by toast0 »

adw wrote: post #343
eloisant wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except nobody uses the .us tld, but pretty much every every Japanese company is on a .co.jp

Schools use it!

Based on my small sample of schools, all of the ones that were using locality based names under ca.us have migrated elsewhere, including to 2nd level domains under .us.

Re: .name Termination

#353

Post by ambigious7777 »

markhahn wrote: post #149
nneonneo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since neither smith.name nor the wildcard *.name appear in the Public Suffix List ( https://publicsuffix.org/ ), browsers would likely allow any page on a *.smith.name domain to set cookies for .smith.name. There was an effort to properly handle the .name 2LDs, but it was never resolved because there’s no easy way to tell a reserved 2LD (open for 3LD registrations only) apart from a normal 2LD on .name: https://githu…

I'm always mystified why we haven't leveraged DNS. I mean: why not have cookie policy set by a flag in DNS? Not unlike DKIM or even SSHFP. Of course, we wouldn't need the entire certificate industry if we simply looked up a site's PK along with its DNS record...

You're talking about DAME (which email uses). It has it's own issues like not having transparency logs, and if a DNSSEC signing keyholder goes rogue, there is no easy way to revoke trust (unlike CRLs for Web PKI).

Re: .name Termination

#354

Post by toast0 »

xamde wrote: post #212
bityard wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, nothing, but it does assume that Verisign doesn't have an unstated plan to do something else with .name. Domain registration is the real estate of the Internet and very little has happened in the last 30 years of domain name policy that has been for the benefit of anyone outside the the registrars. For all we know, this is simply the first step in a series of moves for Verisign to better monetize the .name TLD…

Also, someone managed to run all this 20 years ago. Has technology gotten so much worse? Is RAM now THAT expensive?

Not just someone, Verisign managed to run this registry since its delegation.

Restrict future 3rd level registrations, offer a path to upgrade a 3rd level registration to a 2nd level registration for those 2nd level domains with a single registrant and the burden will decrease over time.

Re: .name Termination

#355

Post by jayde2767 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #330
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?

That's the crazy part - they can take your money, prorated to some future-period but, upon cancellation, the remaining future period of YOUR money becomes THEIR immediate revenue recognition. Is it fraud or theft? To me, it has to be one or the other...

Re: .name Termination

#356

Post by megagpt2 »

londons_explore wrote: post #148
Pxtl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm working on same for my family since I want to properly degoogle a bit. One thing I think long term - if I give my kids first-name @ last name , that means that I forever hold power over their email. Which isn't great. But what's the alternative? Register one full domain name per kid? Even ignoring the cost, the ergonomics are awful. Imho email is missing a feature for nameless email addresses for when somebody ju…

A child born today sees email like we see the telegraph... they'll grumpily sign up to gmail just so they can get a verification email, and that'll be all it gets used for. Messaging their irl friends will be done in apps like Discord.

[dead]

Re: .name Termination

#357

Post by breakingcups »

aliasxneo wrote: post #298
zamadatix wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical implementation aside, "what" prevents this from going down the exact same path as ICANN? E.g. how do we know next year the registration fees won't be 5x or certain registrations denied?

A good question. Unfortunately, all I can say is we have a solution that involves specific European countries, laws, and regulations. As I said in a previous comment, happy to share more outside of this venue, but not all details are 100% public at this point.

If your solution can't survive public scrutiny, it doesn't seem like a trustworthy solution?

Re: .name Termination

#358

Post by megagpt2 »

Pxtl wrote: post #100
omnibrain wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 20 year ago I registered {lastname}.name and have dozens third level domains below it. So there are "privately owned" second level domains under .name for quite some time...

I'm working on same for my family since I want to properly degoogle a bit. One thing I think long term - if I give my kids first-name @ last name , that means that I forever hold power over their email. Which isn't great. But what's the alternative? Register one full domain name per kid? Even ignoring the cost, the ergonomics are awful. Imho email is missing a feature for nameless email addresses for when somebody ju…

[dead]

Re: .name Termination

#359

Post by greyface- »

strenholme wrote: post #349
fc417fc802 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My aside wasn't intended to be pedantic, rather observing the apparent inconsistency in how it appears people think about these matters versus what the present situation illustrates the reality to be. > but (1) I’m referring to a registrar/issuer, which makes it yet more complicated We're also talking about a ccTLD which makes it even more complicated. AFAIK those fall entirely under the jurisdiction of the respectiv…

The way it worked is that someone nominally representing the CA State Government had* ca.us, and they in turn gave* san-jose to someone who nominally represented San Jose, los-angeles to someone who nominally represented Los Angeles, santa-cruz to someone who nominally represented Santa Cruz, and so on. city-name.ca.us domains were still free (and charging for .com and .org domains was a new thing at the time); you w…

> This isn’t how things are done these days

The old locality domains still exist, and in many localities you can still register them today by the same "email a request to some sysadmin" process. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48122635

Your beach.santa-cruz.ca.us domain is still in DNS, just with a broken delegation chain. You could reclaim it right now by setting up a nameserver at reality.samiam.org.

Re: .name Termination

#360

Post by projectileboy »

We keep expecting for-profit organizations to behave as governments. And this is an especially easy sell in the US, where government has been vilified for decades as part of a long propaganda game run by those who wish to privatize and steal those things which should rightfully exist in the public domain. But for-profit organizations, by design, will never ever ever behave in the public interest, and it’s foolish to expect otherwise. This is not a criticism of the author; this is a criticism of ICANN, and the subcontracting of governance.
Post reply on HN