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

481–490 of 564 posts

Re: .name Termination

#481

Post by account42 »

noAnswer wrote: post #394
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you happen to lose your domain, it will in most cases be easier to recover than a restricted account. I used to think this, until I inadvertently let a registration fail to renew because I didn't update my expired credit-card's billing details with NameCheap - they did send me automated emails about it but I missed them, unfortunately. Their grace-period is only 30 days and I didn't notice the problem until 45 d…

The ratio between people who lost their "free big provider" account do to arbitrary algo decisions and people who lost their domain because they ignored provider's invoice for over a month must be 1.000.000 to 1. :-) I use a prepaid provider. If at the day of the renewal there is no money "in the bank" they immediately release the domain. So yeah, I treat their reminders with priority. I really should change provider…

It's ignoring the reminder for however long name cheap sends them (*) PLUS ignoring that the domain is down for over a month. At that point I can only assume that the person must not have cared about that domain very much.

* Providers I have used send them multiple months ahead of expiry but I also don't use automated renewal and buy as far ahead as I can and still extend that yearly.

Re: .name Termination

#482

Post by Nition »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #459
Nition wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fraser.name does not seem to be currently registered, so it seems they could automatically give him that name, and hence solve the problem entirely. But I wonder if there might be some competing names on the third level? Like, he's neil.fraser.name, but what if there's also bob.fraser.name and they'd both very much like to keep their domains?

I think the point is that currently if anyone .fraser.name is registered, then fraser.name cannot be registered. The change that Verisign is making is to deregister all the *.fraser.name domain registrations, which will then free up fraser.name for registration. So it becomes a race to register fraser.name and the winner gets to recreate all the *.fraser.name subdomains they want, for whatever purpose they want.

I know, but what I mean is, if he's the only one that even owns anything at .fraser.name now, then it'd be easy to just automatically give him all of .fraser.name when that happens, and then he can recreate his subdomains without worrying about someone else snagging it first. But that doesn't work if someone else owns somethingelse.fraser.name, because you can't give it to both of them.

Re: .name Termination

#483

Post by pumplekin »

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…

.uk and .co.uk are both run by Nominet, the UK registry.

Quirky stuff like .co.uk / .org.uk / .sch.uk 2nd level domains partly come around from .uk being the worlds first CCTLD outside the US (and as other parts of this thread say, .us isn't that popular a CCTLD).

Everything was new and different people tried different hierarchy and structures to 2LD and 3LD's. .co.uk is also far from unique, I know this is common in many other places (UK/NZ/IN/ZA/KR/MX).

The UK now allows directy foo.uk registrations as well, but many people still have SLD's registered and will continue to do so.

Re: .name Termination

#484

Post by account42 »

chrismorgan wrote: post #74
fetzu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also note that their response is the exact length of the shortest allowed one, and yet still wrong.

I want to hear you justify, with perfect gravity, “N/A.” being the exact same length as “None.” Pictures of handwriting or specific fonts accepted. :D

No. Not applicable.

Re: .name Termination

#485

Post by megagpt2 »

abofh wrote: post #393
palemoonsinking wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they want to drop the possibility of selling some as premium domains? If they have their shells setup right they will probably be able to get a premium from some 3rd level domain owners wrongly afraid someone else is interested. The main problem with the Internet today is that we didn't destroy ICANN when they started this TLD sell off crap. A replacement institution may have at least told Verisign a TLD th…

Because it's not worth it financially. After icann is the tld registrar, and after that above. So, if anyone is destroying it, it's not the registrar, it's the tld.

[dead]

Re: .name Termination

#486

Post by shelled »

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 understood by just looking at the title and after reading what is going on I am still concerned and not for some .name domains but I've .net and .com domains.

The main issue here is the way VeriSign and ICANN are operating. Unchecked, hostile, and without consequences (even the ombudsman okay the move). Someone might come along and say but you can always fight in the court - and that's the problem! Some company or entity claims one of those .net/.com domains I "use" and just gets us suspended and handed over, as someone not living in the USA I will literally be out of any option. This "then go to the court" is a very dangerous setting. We all know this but this squarely rigged to be in favour of the offenders with means and power.

Re: .name Termination

#487

Post by j16sdiz »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #303
Macha wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's why you form leverage with 22k others that are in the same boat as you. The root with the users is the root that becomes trusted, which then becomes the root that resolves. Rolling-over and allowing ICANN to quietly get away with this is exactly what they want.

22k is nothing on the internet.

A random youtube channel have way more than that.

Re: .name Termination

#488

Post by account42 »

mchesters wrote: post #6

Wow, they were extremely laziest in the request form too. Most answers are just a few words. > 3.6. Have you communicated with any of the entities whose products or services might be affected... > "No. Not applicable."

What's even the point of having this question if No without a very good explanation isn't an instant denial.

Re: .name Termination

#489

Post by realityking »

TZubiri wrote: post #412
dvt wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are technically correct, but Verisign billed buying an x subdomain as if the y domain was part of a stable infrastructure. Which it kind of was until they decided to pull the rug.

Is there any resource you can point towards understanding this? I'm well versed on DNS itself, so it can be a technical document. What I understand would be the following: 1- Verisign manages the TLD registry for .name (and others), which includes managing the authoritative DNS servers (as pointed to by the .name NS and A records on the root DNS servers), 2- as well as for updating the NS records of .name records it…

Your misunderstanding lies here:

> 3- one or some of the domain owners, for example for fraser.name, acted as a registry themselves managing authoritative DNS servers for NS records of .fraser.name domains, these third level DNS servers being pointed to by the name. NS records.

There was no domain owner for fraser.name. Verisgn acted as the registry for fraser.name and allowed a registrar to directly register bob.fraser.name.

Before 2004 these third-level domains were the only way to register .name domains. It was the intended structure. See Wilipedia for an explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.name#Structure

Re: .name Termination

#490

Post by crossroadsguy »

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…

> MagicMoonlight was [dead]ed for not knowing what "dot org scam" refers to.

This is a very hn thing (shadow-banned accounts should not be able to comment though and should be treated differently than "dead" because I could see the comment). I was accused by a fellow hn'er just a few days back I was performing ignorance because I didn't know something very US specific legal term and had asked in a sub thread. Another person said I could just google that, or ask an AI.

Coming back to the scam - it's bizarre to think ICANN could begin to do that! TLDs are such a basic aspect of online identity today and just to think that an outrage, i.e an overwhelming response, caused the proposal to be scrapped, is unsettling.

I am not sure but we should rather move to something else or remove this power from such for profit companies or non-profits that often behave worse than for profits, or at the behest of them.

Post reply on HN