So basically a managing company for the apartment block is forcibly evicting every single home owner via some toilet paper exemption by the government, and not only that, but they will tell you that after eviction happens at some unspecified day and time, the first person to get to a city council and claim apartment, will become legally its owner. And they also stealing any and all advance payments, just because. Nice policing there :)
.name Termination
541–550 of 562 posts
Re: .name Termination
#542This points to a more general problem with some of the Internet infrastructure -- since real people don't actually own domain names, much less e-mail addresses (assuming they use e.g. @gmail.com), they're always at the mercy of a third party, which is normally tolerable except that with prevalence of user accounts at various Internet services, for any given person, tied to an e-mail that receives password reset instructions and what not, ultimately ownership of the service account is in the hands of whomever owns the e-mail. Although Google doesn't read your e-mail to order pizza on your behalf and bill, and even if your crypto-savvy brethren encrypt their communication to you, services you more or less depend on do _not_ send you e-mail that only _you_ can open -- regardless of the mail transfer or storage system (read: the e-mail is plaintext).
In light of this particular situation, I think a secret key shared between you and the service, at least, could guarantee that even in the event the e-mail address is stolen (or otherwise taken) from you, the service account remains in your hands.
I know I am not breaking new ground here, but I don't think the Internet is getting healthier for the human, it's at least going to get worse before it may get better. So maybe we need to adjust our assumptions and mitigate accordingly.
Re: .name Termination
#543In 1992, I got myself an AT&T EasyReach 700 number. It was going to be my phone number for life. They killed that a couple years later. Then I got an AT&T True Connections 500 number. It was going to be my phone number for life. That died a few years later too.
And what lesson have you learned?
Re: .name Termination
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a brief explanation of what DNTLS is that you could post here?
Sure, happy to put something here as a comment. Alice registers `alice.dntls` and Bob registers `bob.dntls` on the DNTLS network. During the registration process, they generate PQ key pairs that are registered along with the name. Alice's and Bob's name are hashed before being stored on the network. Bob knows Alice's name, so he can perform the necessary hash computation to look up Alice's public key material on the…
Your solution seems tangential to the problem brought evident here, with how ICANN and VeriSign are able between themselves, to turn 22,000 or so tangible name registrations into dust, without any retribution or refund. The funny thing is that DNS -- where these names actually reside -- is distributed, but it's not as federated as to prevent the kind of takeover. Worst case, a rogue state can declare their own root name servers with their own fork of all name records including 3LDs for `.name`, show the middle finger to the U.S. and call it a win -- except that real people in the U.S. or otherwise using DNS servers that don't hold the forked data -- will fail to connect to the services expected at those names as specified by the rogue state, and will instead connect somewhere else. Basically like two realities of links pointing different places in each universe. A multiverse of name resolution. Not great at all, except what if the rogue state is larger and thus more power-dominant than the U.S.? The U.S. can pretend they don't care, but they become ostracised through DNS, and that's not going to win favours with the users. In other words if 4 out of 5 people prefer x.y.z. points to my actually useful website except some scammy ad-ridden page, then whoever doesn't point x.y.z. to my website is going to lose users -- unless those behind the scammy x.y.z. alternative pledge to monetarily compensate for every disgruntled user.
Anyway, name resolution needs to be federated because ICANN is apparently compromised as far as doing the right thing goes. A single root model may not work anymore. Maybe blockchain can finally do some good...
Re: .name Termination
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
The .name predates the TLD well-off crap. The first huge bulk of new TLDs happened in 2014, .name dates back from 2001, just like .info or .coop. Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD: companies had .com, organizations had .org, Internet related stuff had .net, there was .gov, .edu, .mil, and ccTLDs, but nothing made for individuals. It filled this use case, it actually made sense.
> Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD That's a silly idea. While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google", so that it's relatively unambiguous who `google.com` should refer to, there is no uniqueness whatsoever to personal names. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people called "John Smith", so the FQDN `john.smith.name.` would not really…
> While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google"
There aren't laws to ensure that. Within specific jurisdictions, sure, but not globally.
A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records.
The lack of more namespaces also led to things like nissan.com being owned by Uzi Nissan (and now his family, I assume) rather than the car company.
While you're right that there are many duplicates, one extra TLD still broadened the namespace a lot, and the most important part of the idea was that by giving people less of a reason to register .com or .cctld, we'd give far more people the option to get @.name as an email address.
(The cultural aspect is irrelevant - it was not enforcing a specific order. If people wanted to register lastname.firstname.com, nothing would stop that)
By the time we applied for .name we actually had experience running a webmail service where people shared ~60,000 domain names, and had ~2 million accounts on that, and we'd done extensive modelling before acquiring those, and as a result at the time we probably had better data than anyone on the distribution of names worldwide.
What we seriously overestimated (every applicant overestimated how popular the new TLDs would be, but the generic ones, generally did better) was how many people were in the intersection of people who'd figure out how to buy a domain name and people who wanted firstname@lastname.name as an e-mail address.
Re: .name Termination
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Especially when the marketing was saying [1]: > As your .name can be registered for up to 10 years and ownership is renewable, your .name really can be yours for life. It seemed like there was an offer of renewable registration at least for a life term. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20020609132126/http://nic.name/c...
Fun fact: The Peter Morgan listed on that page was an actual employee of Global Name Registry. I believe he agreed to sign a contract to let us use the name as example.
Re: .name Termination
#547Earlier 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…
Looking at the threads below, very few people are discussing technical things in dns terms like zone or nameserver. Yeah. The way how most things on the internet prove ownership make the assumption that the 3ld is owned by the 2ld. Extend it once out for country specific ones and you cover most cases that people have to work with. Then when you consider DNS is fundamental infrastructure and people build secure things…
This wasn't really a consideration for anyone back when we applied for .name, and it already wasn't true back then (.us, and .uk were both prominent examples where it didn't hold)
Re: .name Termination
#548I 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…
Sorry, I don't understand this rule, would someone kindly explain? I own lastname.name and use it for email only like this: firstname@lastname.name I always thought as owner of lastname.name, I'm the only one able to add subdomain.lastname.name. Is this wrong?? 1) Can anyone "buy" scam.lastname.name without my authorization on .name?? 2) Can anyone owning not.lastname.name then steal my emails going to: firstname@*.l…
You are entirely unaffected by this, because you registered a 2nd-level domain. The problem is for the people who registered 3rd-level domains (john.smith.name). If you're wondering why anyone would do that, it's because it was originally the only option if you wanted a .name domain.
Re: .name Termination
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even that doesn't pass basic scrutiny. The same ambiguity can and always will exist with tim-apple.com and tim.apple.com - there's nothing here that needs fixing.
True, they can’t outright prevent the ambiguity, but much fewer people will go to the trouble of establishing such subdomains when the option isn’t directly offered by the registrar. This is my theory because, a priori, 3LDs should be more profitable than 2LDs, because with 3LDs John Doe and Jane Doe don’t have to compete over doe.name , but instead can each separately purchase john.doe.name and jane.doe.name . Appar…
That's what we thought when we applied for .name, especially coupled with mail forwarding at doe.name so jane and john could get jane@doe.name and john@doe.name respectively.
In practice the demand was lacklustre.
We ran a webmail provider prior to that, with 60k domains or so, and the demand was higher for that, basically. To get a decent return out of it, you'd probably have to package it up with services on top, and our investors made us sell off the webmail service when we got .name... It turned out to be the more profitable of the two services. Doh.
Re: .name Termination
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was working for a company that had hundreds and thousands of domains. It was a fortune 50 company, and they had a policy generally against wildcard domains.
I really wish I could be this stupid and have enough power to make such stupid policies
I felt the same way at the time. Now, I believe we have better things to spend our collective time and energy on.