5 ms·
I agree that this was the right move by ICANN. There's a discussion to be had about modernization and what this means in practical terms. The philosophical int
by BeefWellington 5y ago
I agree that this was the right move by ICANN.
There's a discussion to be had about modernization and what this means in practical terms. The philosophical internet exists in a space unpolluted by things like critical infrastructure becoming internet-connected. It's not a safe space for these things and was never designed to be one.
Governments have been doing a poor to terrible job of threat modeling their critical infrastructure. You saw this in Florida[1] and in Texas[2] last year. These sorts of things should not be accessible via the Internet.
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/us/florida-water-plant-hack/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/us/florida-water-plant-hack/i...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/15/us-energy-pipeline-colonial-ransomware-attack https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/15/us-energy-pi...
- amelius 5y ago> I agree that this was the right move by ICANN. Should this be decided by ICANN, though?
- jaywalk 5y agoIf someone asked you, personally, to cut Russia off from the Internet, are you making a "decision" when you reply that you can't do it? No, of course you're not. It's simply something you don't have the authority/ability to do. Same with ICANN here.
- amelius 5y agoThen they should say they don't have the authority.
- hickimsedenolan 5y agoThey've already told that: >The globally agreed policies do not provide for ICANN to take unilateral action to disconnect these domains as you request. Shouldn't be that hard to read a one-and-a-half page long document!
- amelius 5y agoIt was a reply to: > I agree that this was the right move by ICANN. Which turned out not to be a "move", really.
- BeefWellington 5y agoAs they laid out, it's really not within their mandate nor the scope of their operations to do this anyways. Responding and explaining that is really all they can do.
- judge2020 5y agoICANN has covered all their bases here as most/all rules for TLDs don't really apply to ccTLDs or the governments that run them since they "own" the ccTLD. This is why http://ai./ http://ai./ exists, and the only thing ICAAN has in terms of guarantees for .ru is this agreement letter[0]. ICAAN specifically states at the end that, even without this agreement letter, ICAAN will continue to perform their duties to maintain the DNS system. 0: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-ru-letters-25mar07-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-ru-letters...
- AviationAtom 5y agoHow exactly does that ai. domain function? I have never seen a working URL formatted like that.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoai is a TLD, and domains technically all end in a "." - that is, you're reading this on news.ycombinator.com. , just nobody ever bothers writing the final dot.
- herpderperator 5y agoI wonder why doesn't Google make a `https://google https://google.` since they own that TLD.
- ratww 5y agoI believe the biggest issue is that it would have to be a non-SSL domain, unless Google figure out someone willing to sign a certificate for a that. But I also remember this being frowned upon by ICANN or some other entity in the past. Btw, the dot is not necessary (maybe it is in some OSs/browsers): http://ai/ http://ai/
- judge2020 5y agounder gTLD rules (the TLDs that private companies can buy/invest in), TLD operators cannot host any records outside of NS and RRSIG/other cryptographic record types, so they can't host email or webpages at the TLD itself. ccTLDs (country code) are effectively "owned" by the nation state themselves so ICANN generally doesn't impose too many rules on how they're used. https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/new-gtld-dotless-domain-names-prohibited-30-8-2013-en https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/new-gtld-dotl...