- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
As much as I understand that some tiny countries need every source of income they can get, I still firmly believe that regional TLDs should only get to be used by users relevant to that region. Or else they just have no meaning at all.
That was my mini rant. Thanks for attending. That is all.
I doubt this will happen, but they should just reassign it to the Mauritius authority. The citizens of the islands could then potentially see some benefit from it, not Google or ICANN or whoever selflessly offers to take it over.
Normally that would have been the preferred solution, but since IANA has experienced all kinds of shenanigans on similar occasions they have decided to not allow ccTLD’s to survive their former country anymore.
Yep. And for very good reasons, as explained in the article. But knowing that domains can be a significant source of income for a small nation, it does seem a shame to both waste that resource and break tons of sites in the process. I wish there were better ways to do this that didn’t mean shutting it down or even selling it off to the highest bidder (who already has enough money).
Anyone else potentially see a problem in which a single organization oversees all name usage and can arbitrarily decide to break a good majority of the internet over stupid shit like this? Or are we all just fine with a single American based entity being able to decide what domains are valid and not?
Those countries are free to build out their own tcp/ip networks and configure them however they like. North Korea did it, how hard can it be?
Who says they need to go that far? One can build alternate DNS systems without self-isolating, in fact they should. Air-gapping like you suggest is extra work and not necessary to implement new domain registration control and DNS root servers. Also it kind of defeats the point because it isn’t a stand against IANA it’s saying build your own internet, not take back the one we already have.
Also it kind of defeats the point because it isn’t a stand against IANA it’s saying build your own internet, not take back the one we already have.
The US created the internet and created IANA to manage it. You’re not talking about taking it back, you’re talking about taking it. If you want to control it you should build your own, like the US or North Korea did.
The US did not “create” the internet. It was one of the contributors certainly, but what makes up the internet and several of its components is international work. Much of TCP is influenced by the french Cyclades, http was developed by a brit, ssh was created by a fin, ftp is the work of an indian. Arpanet certainly had a lot of influence, but claiming the US created what is the internet today is incredibly wrong.
Regardless of who created the underlying tech, the internet is the result of taking ARPAnet, a US department of defense project, public. The US absolutely created the internet. There’s nothing stopping other countries from using those techs, bypassing IANA, and creating their own networks if they don’t like the US controlling the backbone of the network they created.
Let’s pretend that the US created the internet as a whole and that it wasn’t created by a joint effort from different actors around the world. That still doesn’t mean they own the internet today like you continue to imply. And consequently means that any group, organization, or country which chooses to deploy alternate DNS Root servers (forked or fully custom) on their own DNS providers is well within the right to do that without needing to build their own internet, and simply use all the non air-gapped infrastructure they have already.
Tangentially related, but I love how http://ai is an actual website that you can visit. We’re so used to thinking of websites as
<something>.<tld>that it’s really weird to see a website hosted directly on a top level domain with no subdomain.it does not load for me
edit: oh it does not have https, wow
Internet journalism means you can sensationalize hypotheticals like “The IANA may fudge its own rules” and “Money talks” without having to provide a source for those claims.
And why should I be careful choosing a TLD or interpret this as a warning? The Internet isn’t breaking, it’s changing. All this does is fear monger in favor of one Pope of the Internet.
KILL CENTRALIZED DNS
OK poof there are now 100 name servers delegating .com. Which one does your ISP default you to? [1-100]
All of them, find one that responds an answer valid for my local saved key.
The DNS server is no longer an authority on its own, just your keyring matters.
Who issued the key?
The certificate authorities on my ring that I trust. For normal people that’s already included in their OS or browser
So, an authority? It sounds like this would complicate DNSSEC by requiring the “root keys” to be stored outside the DNS itself.
We already have to have key rings. Centralized DNS is just a second, superfluous layer of authority (and a massive grift) on top
