Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Save .org

savedotorg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 355 posts

Re: Save .org

#321

Post by squeezingswirls »

squeezingswirls wrote: post #165
SyneRyder wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be due to GDPR. Some European registry companies believe GDPR makes the collection and publishing of WHOIS data illegal. ICANN is currently suing a Tucows company in Germany [1] over their refusal to comply with WHOIS data collection, and ICANN published a Temporary Specification that allows/requires every other registry to hide WHOIS data globally pending the result of the GDPR court case [2]. Of course,…

Yes, an "About Us" page should be included on that site at least. AFAIK GDPR protects personal data only, so if the savedotorg.org registrant is an entity of any kind then it shouldn't be any problem publishing that info.

They've added an "About this site" page now. As I can't edit my previous comment, I'll add the link here https://savedotorg.org/index.php/about/

Re: Save .org

#322

Post by denkmoon »

hultner wrote: post #218
byuu wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of mapping name=IP is not remotely technically difficult, and I'd dare say most people reading this message could implement the backend to such a system in a few days. Setting up the peering replication and nameservers around the world is considerably harder, but it's definitely not a $10 billion+ problem (the current value of registrars and certificate authorities.) A startup funded by YC could handle th…

Browsers shouldn't be the entity deciding on address resolution, a domain system bound only to the web/httpx would be a huge leap backwards. This should be up to the os and whatever names resolution the os provides should be happily accepted by any network program, be it a browser, email client, ssh, irc or something completely different.

> Browsers shouldn't be the entity deciding on address resolution

Someone tell the guys pushing DNS over HTTPS that.

Re: Save .org

#323

Post by syshum »

antpls wrote: post #155
windexh8er wrote: post #16

I've been thinking a lot about the sheer downsides of DNS overall. We need something different. Something decentralized, encrypted, something not reliant on a protocol that hasn't kept pace with security and privacy and we need something verifiable that provides accountability. As others have said TLDs have become a racket. Only the priveleged and nation states have the authority to use the system as a funnel of ridi…

I'm not convinced we are talking about a decentralization issue. We could achieve the same result with laws. Just make what is happening illegal, corruption is already illegal. Furthermore, decentralization won't solve the basic economy rules of offer/demand. Even with a decentralized system, website will still be referenced by natural words ("domains"), which can be owned by only one site-owner at a time, which mean…

It is amusing that you believe government would stop corruption.

History proves that to be false

Further "just make it illegal" under which nations laws? That was the problem ICANN was suppose to solve, no one wanted the internet to be operated under the Laws of the US, which is why in 2016 the US removed itself from Internet Governance.

So do we put the Internet under the laws of China? or the EU both of which have Free Expression issues....

Which nation? or maybe the UN which has Dictators and human rights abusers in positions of power...

Decentralization is far far far better than looking to a government resolution

Re: Save .org

#324

Post by KiwiJohnno »

sieabahlpark wrote: post #57
foxhop wrote: post #51

I think I give up on the Internet that we know today. I'm too tired to fight anymore. Monopoly ISPs with data caps, DNS rent seeking, the walled gardens, the internet of shit where I cannot walk down my street without getting recorded by every house with a "ring". I'm done with it. I don't want to partake anymore, I don't want to fight it anymore, I don't want to care anymore. Let the Google's and Facebook's have the…

How about we just use different domains? .org is gone, use .com or .net or any of the other hundred of domains.

I've been using the same email address, at my own .org domain for 20 years now.

Changing that would be a proper PITA, and I'd hate to have to do it just because ICANN sold out in such a transparently corrupt way.

Re: Save .org

#325

Post by crb3 »

mrzool wrote: post #222
byuu wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of mapping name=IP is not remotely technically difficult, and I'd dare say most people reading this message could implement the backend to such a system in a few days. Setting up the peering replication and nameservers around the world is considerably harder, but it's definitely not a $10 billion+ problem (the current value of registrars and certificate authorities.) A startup funded by YC could handle th…

I may be mistaken, but I always thought DNS resolution was handled by the underlying OS, and not by the browser through HTTP. Support from browser vendors would probably matter a great deal for this, but not at a technical/implementation level, right?

Chrome already ignores OS-level name-resolution in favor of phoning home directly to Google DNS unless you block their IP#s at your border. I see it daily in etherape. Side-effect: Chrome users on my LAN have to type in IP#s to browse local resources because their browser ignores my dnsmasq, which resolves the split horizon.

Re: Save .org

#326

Post by arcticbull »

mopsi wrote: post #314
arcticbull wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve got it backwards. When the keys are lost or stolen you’re SOL. The dispute resolution process would restore proper ownership via existing legal frameworks like it’s been done for hundreds of years.

> The dispute resolution process would restore proper ownership via existing legal frameworks like it’s been done for hundreds of years. Not if the owner lost all proof of ownership, which is the assumption your argument is based on.

You don't need proof of ownership to obtain a judgement in your favor. It would make the process easier to be sure but you can make the case based on historical ownership and other indirect proof that a judge will accept.

You don't walk into a court and have the judge say "what you don't have the receipt?! case dismissed!!" -- the judge isn't a parking meter.

Re: Save .org

#327

Post by chii »

patrickdavey wrote: post #139
yuz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will be the impact?

I run a tiny carpooling site (not for profit) snowpool.org . If they turned around and upped the fees to 3K a year or something, it would basically force me to shut the service down. This is an incredibly awful move, I'm completely astounded that it was allowed to happen.

if there's money to doing something, it will happen.

Why not just move to a different domain, and while your old one is still "cheap", do a redirect etc?

Re: Save .org

#328

Post by harry8 »

carapace wrote: post #43

As if this couldn't get crazier: > Goldman Sachs & Co LLC. is serving as financial adviser to both the Internet Society and PIR. https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/11/15/resto...

Whenever there are politicans robbing those who they claim to serve, Goldmans are there advising anc charging huge fees.

Whether it is this, Greece debt, 1MDB in Malaysia. Goldmans have no regard for their own reputation so we should assume anytime Goldman are advisors that the deal is a massive ripoff for which people should be going to jail. Goldmans may not have always been this way but they sure are now! They're a leading indicator of gross corruption.

Re: Save .org

#329

Post by exikyut »

kragen wrote: post #85
exikyut wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you're not allowed to leave. Earlier today I was trying to Google a website I found on my PC a while back. (Backing up its disk atm, and don't use Chrome sync.) Clicked on an unrelated link, and was already in the process of reaching for the Back button when I realized I was looking at a cert failure (wrong domain in certificate). Heh. Idly curious I hit Continue... And was presented with my first > Content De…

What website?

The initial one I was visiting purported to host various cartoons (and probably other TV shows).

I have no idea what the second site was.

Re: Save .org

#330

Post by profmonocle »

crb3 wrote: post #325
mrzool wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be mistaken, but I always thought DNS resolution was handled by the underlying OS, and not by the browser through HTTP. Support from browser vendors would probably matter a great deal for this, but not at a technical/implementation level, right?

Chrome already ignores OS-level name-resolution in favor of phoning home directly to Google DNS unless you block their IP#s at your border. I see it daily in etherape. Side-effect: Chrome users on my LAN have to type in IP#s to browse local resources because their browser ignores my dnsmasq, which resolves the split horizon.

Do you mean Chrome or the Chromecast? The Chromecast totally ignores network-configured DNS and uses 8.8.8.8. The Chrome browser has its own DNS client, but it doesn't phone home to Google DNS - it still uses the DNS servers configured by the OS.
Post reply on HN