4 ms·

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

by antpls 7y ago

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 means there will always be people ready to spent a lot of money to acquire a domain/reference. I'm for decentralization in general, but in the current case I fail to see how decentralization alone will make domain owning fairer

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
In this particular case, the problem is not that individual domains can be traded at market prices though. The problem is that organisations have to rent their domains from a central authority that can hike the rent for an entire TLD to some fantasy price. So the hierarchical structure of DNS is clearly what creates an opportunity for corruption and extortion. And let's not forget that DNS is ultimately a global issue, which means that the rule of law cannot be taken for granted. Laws have to be part of the solution. But it's easier to legislate effectively if the underlying structure doesn't invite corruption, authoritarian abuse and market dysfunction in the first place.
- zokier 7y ago
  > And let's not forget that DNS is ultimately a global issue, which means that the rule of law cannot be taken for granted. I think this strongly points towards ccTLDs being the best solution. It is very difficult to get all the different countries to agree on common rules/governance for the legacy TLDs, but if everyone gets their own independent corner then that should be easier to get agreements on. Dividing the control by country also conveniently avoids any single one being able to cause as much damage as ICANN now is.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    I think ccTLDs don't work so well in a globalised world. Many internet services are not country specific, and ccTLDs sort of put you in the local business category.
    - teddyh 7y ago
      > Many internet services are not country specific The companies and/or owners of those services do operate under a certain legal aegis, though. It’s not like they are stateless. I just happened to read the text on a food product; it had text in three languages, and the www.* domains listed in the three texts were in the ccTLD for each country. No .com was mentioned anywhere.
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        Domain names should never change and be easy to remember whereas legal ties to countries are often complex (i.e not 1 to 1) and subject to change. Should I really have to remember going to apple.ie because that's where the Apple shop happens to be legally based at the moment? Or should it be apple.eu because consumer protection is an EU matter? Or apple.us because that's where Apple's headquarter is located? And when a company gets sold to a different country, should all their URLs have to change?
        teddyh 7y ago
        Multinational companies should be the exception, not the rule. “Designed by Apple in California”; will Apple ever stop being a U.S. company? Why would “apple.us” not be appropriate? A company is an entirely legal construction, and, as such, is entirely bound to the laws of a certain country.
syshum 7y ago
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

by antpls 7y ago

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

In this particular case, the problem is not that individual domains can be traded at market prices though. The problem is that organisations have to rent their domains from a central authority that can hike the rent for an entire TLD to some fantasy price. So the hierarchical structure of DNS is clearly what creates an opportunity for corruption and extortion. And let's not forget that DNS is ultimately a global issue, which means that the rule of law cannot be taken for granted. Laws have to be part of the solution. But it's easier to legislate effectively if the underlying structure doesn't invite corruption, authoritarian abuse and market dysfunction in the first place.

zokier 7y ago
> And let's not forget that DNS is ultimately a global issue, which means that the rule of law cannot be taken for granted. I think this strongly points towards ccTLDs being the best solution. It is very difficult to get all the different countries to agree on common rules/governance for the legacy TLDs, but if everyone gets their own independent corner then that should be easier to get agreements on. Dividing the control by country also conveniently avoids any single one being able to cause as much damage as ICANN now is.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I think ccTLDs don't work so well in a globalised world. Many internet services are not country specific, and ccTLDs sort of put you in the local business category.
  - teddyh 7y ago
    > Many internet services are not country specific The companies and/or owners of those services do operate under a certain legal aegis, though. It’s not like they are stateless. I just happened to read the text on a food product; it had text in three languages, and the www.* domains listed in the three texts were in the ccTLD for each country. No .com was mentioned anywhere.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      Domain names should never change and be easy to remember whereas legal ties to countries are often complex (i.e not 1 to 1) and subject to change. Should I really have to remember going to apple.ie because that's where the Apple shop happens to be legally based at the moment? Or should it be apple.eu because consumer protection is an EU matter? Or apple.us because that's where Apple's headquarter is located? And when a company gets sold to a different country, should all their URLs have to change?
      - teddyh 7y ago
        Multinational companies should be the exception, not the rule. “Designed by Apple in California”; will Apple ever stop being a U.S. company? Why would “apple.us” not be appropriate? A company is an entirely legal construction, and, as such, is entirely bound to the laws of a certain country.

syshum 7y ago

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