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

401–410 of 559 posts

Re: .name Termination

#401

Post by xp84 »

donmcronald wrote: post #305
ethanhawksley wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd rather trust myself. If you walk around all day with your wallet in your pocket, it might fall out and you'll lose it. Would you like me to hold onto it for you to make sure that doesn't happen?

I agree with you and other selfhosting fans in spirit, I really do.

On the other hand, it's email. I was at a hospital to do a blood draw, and needed them to receive an email (insurance info). I sent them an email from my Gmail. We wait 4-5 minutes. I notice they're checking an office 365 outlook. So, I re-send the same message from my @outlook.com email. Arrives instantly.

Deliverability between MS and GOOG is normally really good, and even that wasn't working right that day. My self-hosted email server being able to deliver to them reliably every time is hopeless. "Big Email" has made it excruciatingly painful to not be on sending from one of their platforms, unless you're one of the big 5 or whatever platforms that send bulk email or bulk transactional email. The SendGrids, Amazon SES, etc.

Re: .name Termination

#402

Post by plorg »

LelouBil wrote: post #391
cowsup wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is: * .name is open for everybody * a company called "Global Name Registry" scooped up a BUNCH of common last names, including fraser.name * Global Name Registry then sold access to neil.fraser.name for far cheaper than the fraser.name domain would cost on its own; someone else could also buy john.fraser.name or jane.fraser.name, so the single fraser.name domain that they owned could have dozens of customers…

You should post it as a top level comment, I finally understood the situation exactly here.

Cowsup is mostly correct, but GNR didn't snap up subdomains, they owned .name originally with the explicit intention of providing domains by name and initially did not accept second-level registrations. Verisign owns all of .name and will simply stop accepting or serving third-level registrations.

Re: .name Termination

#403

Post by xp84 »

zamadatix wrote: post #275
xp84 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I'm guessing that Verisign will throw people a bone in terms of refunds just to avoid getting repeatedly hit with justifiably spiteful lawsuits that (I hope) would be trivially easy for customers to win.

That will cost them very little in terms of cash, as I doubt that many people register that many years ahead, plus in terms of accounting, they won't have accrued that revenue anyway so it wouldn't even hurt their books. Not that a couple hundred K would even matter on the financial statements of a giant, money-printing corporation like that.

The reason why they wouldn't go the route of waiting for expiry is that at least a few have nearly a decade left, and clearly they really want these gone, not just reduced in number. By 2036 when they would finally get to that point, I doubt whatever's driving this concern would even matter.

Re: .name Termination

#404

Post by joquarky »

SahAssar wrote: post #45
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…

.co.uk is run by the same people as .uk. There is no additional org that you trust when you register a .co.uk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk#Second-level_domains > do browsers have a wildcard suffix list Yes: https://publicsuffix.org/ and they have discussed this situation here: https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/issues/2306

Sure, it is right now. What if they decide to sell it off?

Re: .name Termination

#405

Post by TZubiri »

https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policies/rsep-2...

>2.1. What effect, if any, will the proposed service have on the life cycle of domain names?

>None. There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names.

>2.2. Does the proposed service alter the storage and input of Registry Data?

>No. There will not be an alteration to the storage and input of Registry Data.

This sounds wrong? Is this just a knee-jerk form-filler reaction? It seems to me that the admitted "Upon discontinuation, no new third level domain names will be registered and existing third level domain names will be terminated."

In general this sounds like a grotesque misplay that is wildly uncharacteristic for the entity behind the timeless .com

Re: .name Termination

#406

Post by gblargg »

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…

It seems insane because it seems like a big point was to have a permanent site for your name. This just devalues all domain names, showing that they can do a rug-pull at any time because they don't want to manage it (how about turn it over to a private company that can adjust costs so they can make a profit and keep it running?).

Re: .name Termination

#407

Post by strenholme »

greyface- wrote: post #359
strenholme wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m amazed beach.santa-cruz.ca.us is still around. I’ve given it some SSL certs and have reclaimed it:

https://beach.santa-cruz.ca.us/

Thanks for checking the zone files of the parent domain to verify it’s still there.

Re: .name Termination

#408

Post by NAR8789 »

@dang can you update the domain extraction logic for hn titles to include the 3rd level domain for .name domains? It's a little too poetically unfortunate that HN lists the domain on this article as `fraser.name`

Re: .name Termination

#409

Post by TZubiri »

Calavar wrote: post #386
TLDRisk wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been through the Ombuds and a reconsideration request [1]. ICANN says: > There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names. While the Requestor may disagree with Verisign’s response, the Requestor has not shown that ICANN relied upon false or inaccurate material information. The life cycle of a domain name begins when the domain is registered, then moves through various stages before ultimately comi…

> Early termination of a domain registration does not impact the life cycle of the domain, as the domain can still go through the various stages of a standard life cycle. According to ICANN cutting the life cycle short doesn't have any effect on the life cycle? ICANN corruption is at the level of FIFA corruption.

What language games are we playing?

Re: .name Termination

#410

Post by sandcat_ »

xp84 wrote: post #401
donmcronald wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather trust myself. If you walk around all day with your wallet in your pocket, it might fall out and you'll lose it. Would you like me to hold onto it for you to make sure that doesn't happen?

I agree with you and other selfhosting fans in spirit , I really do. On the other hand, it's email. I was at a hospital to do a blood draw, and needed them to receive an email (insurance info). I sent them an email from my Gmail. We wait 4-5 minutes. I notice they're checking an office 365 outlook. So, I re-send the same message from my @outlook.com email. Arrives instantly. Deliverability between MS and GOOG is norm…

There's a difference between controlling the domain and self-hosting. You can still use Gmail and Outlook (I assume, I don't know for a fact) with a custom domain. But the difference is if any of those services become less reliable or whatever, you can move your email across to another provider. You can't do that if you're stuck on an @outlook.com address.

But also, even if you're self hosting on a server in your basement, you can still use SES to deliver your mail. Delivery is not an issue here.

Post reply on HN