4 ms·
What would happen if browsers just decided to make their own name service? Does icann have some sort of protection on domain names? Given that we already use Go
by devwastaken 6y ago
What would happen if browsers just decided to make their own name service? Does icann have some sort of protection on domain names? Given that we already use Google or cloudflare DNS, why not just make a competing nameservice and throw icann to the curb?
- stanmancan 6y agoPlease don’t give storm any ideas
- manquer 6y agoBrowsers are just small part of the Internet , we already use lot of internet outside the browser in the form of apps , email etc . Some people know and can use chose their DNS , many have to rely whatever dns their ISP or corporate IT provides . Very hard to move all that to common new standard Browsers esp chrome/safari as it is modify the URL way more than I am comfortable with . As bad as ICANN is I really don’t want Apple and google dictating how dns should run
- searchableguy 6y agoThey are. 1. HandyBrowser (supports handhshake): https://github.com/HandyMiner/HandyBrowser https://github.com/HandyMiner/HandyBrowser 2. TorBrowser: https://www.torproject.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ 3. Opera: https://unstoppabledomains.com/opera https://unstoppabledomains.com/opera 4. Status.im: https://status.im/ https://status.im/ 5. Brave: https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ 6. Unstoppable: https://unstoppabledomains.com/browser https://unstoppabledomains.com/browser 7. Blockstack: https://blockstack.org/install https://blockstack.org/install Probably few more - maybe dozens. For major DNS providers, nextdns supports handshake. 0] https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/ 1] https://nextdns.io/ https://nextdns.io/
- mwilcox 6y agoThese are namespaces with their own browsers, not browsers with their own namespaces
- javajosh 6y agoWhat if people used a de facto whitelist of IP addresses locally mapped to names in, for example, /etc/hosts? This is how the internet worked in its earliest days, after all. I'm not saying this is a good idea, but it's interesting because it also serves the interest of Google and Facebook, so they might promote the technique. Since people will only be able to see content from a small portion of the internet (the part they have in their local file), and would give content hosted by the big players a huge advantage. It would also have the interesting effect of making "raw IP" addresses more visible, and special, easily remembered IPv4 addresses more valuable!
- renewiltord 6y agoThis does not sound like an improvement over the status quo to me.
- rydre 6y agoYou want to go back to 90's?
- steve19 6y agoThe 80s
- tbodt 6y agoI wouldn't say it serves the interest of Google, because then you couldn't get to all the websites linked from Google Search.
- ramshorns 6y agoThat's fine, Google rehosts them all on AMP anyway and often people don't even click through past the search results page.
- wolco 6y agoAll you would get would be buttons that downloaded applications who would add a line in your host file when run.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y agoAnswer to Q1: Don't care. Software that does not honour /etc/resolv.conf is a PITA. Answer to Q2: No. They have mass cooperation from network admins and DNS software authors to use ICANN roots. Answer to Q3: Go for it. I have been running a non-ICANN root for myself over 20 years.
- Mirioron 6y agoWasn't Tor's .onion basically separate from ICANN until 2015?
- shreyasminocha 6y agoWell, there's OpenNIC — https://www.opennic.org https://www.opennic.org