7 ms·

Note that in the past the USG abused its power to seize domains belonging to foreign companies. See for example https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252

by phicoh 10y ago

Note that in the past the USG abused its power to seize domains belonging to foreign companies. See for example https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-seizes-spanish-domain-name-that-had-already-been-declared-legal.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homel... So they cannot be trusted. Of course, in practice, what goes into the root zone is controlled by ICANN. The whole oversight has been mostly theoretical for many years now.

tptacek 10y ago
They will retain the ability to do this, at least on the most important TLDs, even after this change.
- phicoh 10y ago
  Yes, just pointing out that the USG cannot be trusted, free speech laws or not. In the 90s I considered the gTLDs (.com, .net, .org) most attractive, because I wasn't quite sure how local governments would react and USG seemed reliable. Now the situation is reversed, I value domains in local ccTLDs more than the gTLDs. Of course, ICANN creating an insane number of gTLDs doesn't help either.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You have the same problem in the ccTLDs.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      Not with the US government, you don't.
    - phicoh 10y ago
      Technically, yes. The US government could directly change DNS entries for ccTLDs in the root zone (or sign alternate versions and use them for hacking). However, that would be the nuclear option. And I guess most countries would see that as an act of war. Creating alternate DNS roots isn't very hard. So just like the US is technically capable of launching missiles in the direction of North Korea, but doesn't do it. It is very unlike that the US would directly mess with ccTLDs. From a security point of view, locally installing trust anchors for all ccTLDs would be a good idea though.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        That's an interesting point that you shouldn't credit me for making; I was just implying that other countries will also have arbitrary rules about what lives under their ccTLDs.
        phicoh 10y ago
        Yes, but you would have to comply with one set of rules instead of with the rules of the US as well. For example, in the Rojadirecta case, a Spanish .es domain would have avoided interference by the US. So that's why I consider local ccTLD domains better than gTLDs. If the question is whether the US would be a good steward of international domains or other international aspects of the Internet, then the USG has proven that it cannot be trusted. I'm not saying that any other government would do better, but the new structure reduces (at least in theory) the influence of governments to almost zero and puts oversight in the hand of the Internet community. For better or worse, the Internet community seems to have a better track record than the US government.
- ademarre 10y ago
  I presume this change doesn't quell any criticisms toward DANE?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, it has no impact on the problems with DANE whatsoever.
    - rocqua 10y ago
      Out of curiousity, what are the problems with DANE? From the limited reading I've done it seems great but lacking in adoption.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/ http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mc32 10y ago
There are always going to be disputes and there are always going to be parties who disagree with the adjudication. It's not like everyone is happy with UN resolutions or the ICJ etc. So don't expect perfection from whoever has formal control over this system.
Goronmon 10y ago
So they cannot be trusted. This implies there is someone who could take over that can be trusted. I'm not convinced there is, personally. The question then becomes "Who do you trust more than the US" in this context. I think the answer to that question would be more interesting.
- JohnStrange 10y ago
  There is no such implication. But in any case it seems wise to spread responsibility, given that the US has already abused the system and others haven't because they couldn't. The problem I see is that since ICANN is located within the US, the system will still be abused, because ICANN falls under US jurisdiction with all its moronic justice system and draconian, though generally ineffective, "intellectual property" law enforcement. So nothing will change anyway.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Well most countries have the same or worse intellectual property laws. It's just that the U.S. is most prolific because when people are pirating movies, video games, music, or software they are very likely to be pirating American stuff versus, say, stuff from Malaysia. I understand the reaction from American media and software companies. Now, with that being said I'm very much supportive of "pirating" in that I don't believe that it's stealing since that would mean corporations are entitled to potential future profits. Another thing you pointed out was how ineffective it is. And you're right. Basically nobody cares anymore unless you're making a noticeable amount of money from doing so or just generally doing something other than pirating stuff. Aside from questions about intellectual property, I think the U.S. generally has pretty great laws regarding the Internet. Compare that to, say, Australia where vaginas that don't look "normal" are banned, or the outright censorship in most of the world. With the U.S. being the epicenter of the software industry for the time being, it's very sensitive to any regulation or law involving the Internet.
    - JohnStrange 10y ago
      Uhm, first of all, I don't have anything in particular against fighting piracy, at least not commercial piracy. Unfortunately, the US has used the domain name system to fight piracy without due process in other countries rather than acting within their own jurisdiction and closing illegal servers within their own jurisdiction. That's an (a) abuse of the domain name system, which is (b) technically inefficient -- just use an alternative root server --, and (c) hitting the wrong people such as people who merely put links on their web server rather than those who actually infringe copyright. Because of this documented and patently stupid abuse of the DNS system the US ought not control the root servers, not because of US laws or anything else related to piracy. I couldn't give a shit about piracy, but I do give a shit when some server that is perfectly legal in Spain suddenly becomes inaccessible and replaced by an FBI logo, just because some technically inept dumbass judge in East Texas thinks so. Whether other countries would do better than the US is debatable. I'm glad you like the laws of the US so much, but have a hard time sharing your opinion about them and can think of various more worthy candidate countries for the label "best laws".
astrodust 10y ago
I wouldn't trust the stewardship of ICANN either. This group of muppets has been turning the top-level into a wasteland of garbage ever since they got control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains#ICANN-era_generic_top-level_domains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom... While reasonable gTLDs like .inc, .corp and .ltd get ignored, instead we have .aerospace and .google for reasons that have never been properly explained. They've also handed over .app to Google simply because Google was willing to pay a stupid amount of money for the rights, and Google can't even figure out how to sell these yet: https://www.registry.google https://www.registry.google
- jmelloy 10y ago
  .ltd is available now
  - astrodust 10y ago
    That only took forever, but good to know.
- marvindanig 10y ago
  Exactly! They gave away the .book TLD to Amazon too and now no one can publish their own book using a .book domain name for their work.
  - eridius 10y ago
    They did? That sounds pretty awful, but I don't see .book listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains#ICANN-era_generic_top-level_domains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - kej 10y ago
      See http://nic.book http://nic.book
charonn0 10y ago
In every case I'm aware of the government went after the US-based registrar rather than exercising its power over ICANN.
adventured 10y ago
So the USG seizes a small number of domains in decades of stewardship, and that's all you've got as your gripe? That's like Warren Buffett making you $50 million over 30 years, and then you get upset with him when he loses you a few dollars. Given the extreme risk of allowing censorship-heavy nations like China and Russia to have new influence over the system, it's very obvious this is a terrible move.
smsm42 10y ago
Do you think UN can be trusted on this? I can't remember anything from the history of the UN that would give me an idea they have better regard for property rights and freedoms of people than US government. At least US politicians are susceptible to some minimal electoral feedback from the people. The only way to influence UN functionaries known to work is bribes.

by phicoh 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

They will retain the ability to do this, at least on the most important TLDs, even after this change.

phicoh 10y ago
Yes, just pointing out that the USG cannot be trusted, free speech laws or not. In the 90s I considered the gTLDs (.com, .net, .org) most attractive, because I wasn't quite sure how local governments would react and USG seemed reliable. Now the situation is reversed, I value domains in local ccTLDs more than the gTLDs. Of course, ICANN creating an insane number of gTLDs doesn't help either.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You have the same problem in the ccTLDs.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    Not with the US government, you don't.
  - phicoh 10y ago
    Technically, yes. The US government could directly change DNS entries for ccTLDs in the root zone (or sign alternate versions and use them for hacking). However, that would be the nuclear option. And I guess most countries would see that as an act of war. Creating alternate DNS roots isn't very hard. So just like the US is technically capable of launching missiles in the direction of North Korea, but doesn't do it. It is very unlike that the US would directly mess with ccTLDs. From a security point of view, locally installing trust anchors for all ccTLDs would be a good idea though.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      That's an interesting point that you shouldn't credit me for making; I was just implying that other countries will also have arbitrary rules about what lives under their ccTLDs.
      - phicoh 10y ago
        Yes, but you would have to comply with one set of rules instead of with the rules of the US as well. For example, in the Rojadirecta case, a Spanish .es domain would have avoided interference by the US. So that's why I consider local ccTLD domains better than gTLDs. If the question is whether the US would be a good steward of international domains or other international aspects of the Internet, then the USG has proven that it cannot be trusted. I'm not saying that any other government would do better, but the new structure reduces (at least in theory) the influence of governments to almost zero and puts oversight in the hand of the Internet community. For better or worse, the Internet community seems to have a better track record than the US government.
ademarre 10y ago
I presume this change doesn't quell any criticisms toward DANE?
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, it has no impact on the problems with DANE whatsoever.
  - rocqua 10y ago
    Out of curiousity, what are the problems with DANE? From the limited reading I've done it seems great but lacking in adoption.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/ http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mc32 10y ago

There are always going to be disputes and there are always going to be parties who disagree with the adjudication. It's not like everyone is happy with UN resolutions or the ICJ etc. So don't expect perfection from whoever has formal control over this system.

Goronmon 10y ago

So they cannot be trusted. This implies there is someone who could take over that can be trusted. I'm not convinced there is, personally. The question then becomes "Who do you trust more than the US" in this context. I think the answer to that question would be more interesting.

JohnStrange 10y ago
There is no such implication. But in any case it seems wise to spread responsibility, given that the US has already abused the system and others haven't because they couldn't. The problem I see is that since ICANN is located within the US, the system will still be abused, because ICANN falls under US jurisdiction with all its moronic justice system and draconian, though generally ineffective, "intellectual property" law enforcement. So nothing will change anyway.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Well most countries have the same or worse intellectual property laws. It's just that the U.S. is most prolific because when people are pirating movies, video games, music, or software they are very likely to be pirating American stuff versus, say, stuff from Malaysia. I understand the reaction from American media and software companies. Now, with that being said I'm very much supportive of "pirating" in that I don't believe that it's stealing since that would mean corporations are entitled to potential future profits. Another thing you pointed out was how ineffective it is. And you're right. Basically nobody cares anymore unless you're making a noticeable amount of money from doing so or just generally doing something other than pirating stuff. Aside from questions about intellectual property, I think the U.S. generally has pretty great laws regarding the Internet. Compare that to, say, Australia where vaginas that don't look "normal" are banned, or the outright censorship in most of the world. With the U.S. being the epicenter of the software industry for the time being, it's very sensitive to any regulation or law involving the Internet.
  - JohnStrange 10y ago
    Uhm, first of all, I don't have anything in particular against fighting piracy, at least not commercial piracy. Unfortunately, the US has used the domain name system to fight piracy without due process in other countries rather than acting within their own jurisdiction and closing illegal servers within their own jurisdiction. That's an (a) abuse of the domain name system, which is (b) technically inefficient -- just use an alternative root server --, and (c) hitting the wrong people such as people who merely put links on their web server rather than those who actually infringe copyright. Because of this documented and patently stupid abuse of the DNS system the US ought not control the root servers, not because of US laws or anything else related to piracy. I couldn't give a shit about piracy, but I do give a shit when some server that is perfectly legal in Spain suddenly becomes inaccessible and replaced by an FBI logo, just because some technically inept dumbass judge in East Texas thinks so. Whether other countries would do better than the US is debatable. I'm glad you like the laws of the US so much, but have a hard time sharing your opinion about them and can think of various more worthy candidate countries for the label "best laws".

astrodust 10y ago

I wouldn't trust the stewardship of ICANN either. This group of muppets has been turning the top-level into a wasteland of garbage ever since they got control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains#ICANN-era_generic_top-level_domains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom... While reasonable gTLDs like .inc, .corp and .ltd get ignored, instead we have .aerospace and .google for reasons that have never been properly explained. They've also handed over .app to Google simply because Google was willing to pay a stupid amount of money for the rights, and Google can't even figure out how to sell these yet: https://www.registry.google https://www.registry.google

jmelloy 10y ago
.ltd is available now
- astrodust 10y ago
  That only took forever, but good to know.
marvindanig 10y ago
Exactly! They gave away the .book TLD to Amazon too and now no one can publish their own book using a .book domain name for their work.
- eridius 10y ago
  They did? That sounds pretty awful, but I don't see .book listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains#ICANN-era_generic_top-level_domains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kej 10y ago
    See http://nic.book http://nic.book

charonn0 10y ago

In every case I'm aware of the government went after the US-based registrar rather than exercising its power over ICANN.

adventured 10y ago

So the USG seizes a small number of domains in decades of stewardship, and that's all you've got as your gripe? That's like Warren Buffett making you $50 million over 30 years, and then you get upset with him when he loses you a few dollars. Given the extreme risk of allowing censorship-heavy nations like China and Russia to have new influence over the system, it's very obvious this is a terrible move.

smsm42 10y ago

Do you think UN can be trusted on this? I can't remember anything from the history of the UN that would give me an idea they have better regard for property rights and freedoms of people than US government. At least US politicians are susceptible to some minimal electoral feedback from the people. The only way to influence UN functionaries known to work is bribes.