I still don't understand how ICANN can justify what they charge per domain name? They need to lower their prices. It really adds up if you own a few domains.
Maybe you should stop being a domain squatter.
U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
21–24 of 24 posts
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#22Doesn't NameCoin (a blockchain to store name/values, i.e. decentralized DNS) solve this problem without the need for DNS servers (browsers hold a copy of blockchain), registrars, governments, etc?
Distributed consensus algorithms in general, including all blockchain systems, could solve the registrar issue. Then you just need to solve the squatting problem. Governments have never been required , they are just what grows out of a geographically delimited, naturally re-occuring monopoly on violence in human societies.
Squatting is not a problem: you just cannot use a registered brand name w/out permission. Period. Now, let's look at it the other way around: using the new TLDs I tried to register iloveto.run but my registrar explained that I now need additional paperwork in order to first register the brand name (or prove that I already own it) and then request ICANN for the domain registration (not granted that I will get it even then). Who has the money and time for this bs process? Big corp. So I presume that Nike, Adidas et al will fight (legally) each other to register every imaginable combination of words plus .run?
Fuck it, squatting or not we need to decentralize the DNS. It will be like the gold rush: who ever gets there first deserves it.
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#23More likely: U.S. agencies are confident enough in their other means to control the internet that they're willing to gain back a little good will by appearing to give up some control over ICANN. Let's not forget that the FBI/etc reserve the right to shut down any website for any reason, whether via a letter to a service provider, or simply showing up and confiscating hardware in the name of "national security". And y…
Not at all. Much more likely is the desire of governments everywhere to ... how did the EU commission put it :
"A review of conflicts between national laws or jurisdictions that will suggest possible remedies" [1]
In case anyone doubts what this means : it means that they're angry their laws currently effectively do not apply to the internet (because the site owner is not within their jurisdiction) and they intend to use DNS assignments as the enforcement arm of their governments.
Also, from this article :
"Major corporations have complained, however, that con artists already swarm the Internet with phony Web sites designed to look like the authentic offerings of respected brands."
We all know what they're complaining about and it's not "con artists. It's the fact that holding a trademark on the word "and" is southeast uzbaledongenirestan doesn't give them full veto rights over any dns name that matches ".and.", in any tld.
Expect takedowns to get much, much worse very quickly. This move makes ICANN dependant on organisations that want to use DNS to make legal threats and force any internet site to operate in every jurisdiction their customers may be located in instead of just the one they're located.
And remember : VPNs only help if the thing you're trying to reach is still on the internet. This is about moving enforcement from local ISPs to remote ISPs.
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#24More likely: U.S. agencies are confident enough in their other means to control the internet that they're willing to gain back a little good will by appearing to give up some control over ICANN. Let's not forget that the FBI/etc reserve the right to shut down any website for any reason, whether via a letter to a service provider, or simply showing up and confiscating hardware in the name of "national security". And y…
I'm not sure this works so well for websites hosted outside of the US... LOTS of websites really are hosted outside the US. They resort to confiscating the domain names in these cases, and releasing ICANN is a small step towards revoking this ability.
Personally, I don't really care if the US can shutdown a US hosted (both server and domain) website - that's for Americans to get their laws fixed.
I do however have a problem with the US having global control over the internet. This release of ICANN is a step in that direction.