Slashdot Mirror


Peter Sunde Wants To Create Alternative To ICANN

An anonymous reader writes "According to Peter Sunde's Twitter feed, he has been suspicious of ICANN for a long time. The non-profit corporation is tasked with managing both the IPv4 and IPv6 address spaces as well as handling the management of top-level domain name space including the operation of root nameservers. Sunde has lost a domain in the past because of the way ICANN acted. It was taken without any consultation on their part, instead the organization relied on information from recording industry group IFPI to change the domain ownership. But it seems for some reason his frustration has come to a head recently, and he has put a call out for help to create a competing root server."

13 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. You can't compete with root. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The ROOT domain system is just that, it's trusted because well, if we didn't trust somebody at #1 this whole thing wouldn't work. You can't have a competing .com, .net, .org registry... sure, you could declare your own TLD and be root of that but, well, we don't trust you as much as we trust ICANN because, well, they've been root for a while now and haven't blown it that badly.

    1. Re:You can't compete with root. by bbtom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If redirecting NXDOMAIN to partnered search results pages and killing a bunch of anti-spam scripts and endorsing ridiculously stupid shit like .eco, .xxx, .jobs and .tel happen wasn't enough for ICANN to have "blown it", complying with a Department of Homeland Security request to remove a bunch of domains that contained material that infringes copyright should be the nail in the coffin for the useless stuffed shirts at ICANN.

      ICANN is really a perfect example of where a bunch of wise-beard Unix hacker types could do a better job than the corporate whores currently doing it could. Or better yet, a proper distributed alternative to DNS.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    2. Re:You can't compete with root. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ICANN is really a perfect example of where a bunch of wise-beard Unix hacker types could do a better job than the corporate whores currently doing it could.

      Almost everything in the world currently being done by corporate whores could better be done by wise-beard Unix hacker types; the tiny number of things that couldn't, aren't worth being done at all.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:You can't compete with root. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You can't have a competing .com, .net, .org registry"

      Sure you can. Did you young folks never hear of AlterNIC ?

      (OK, you young folks might be an exaggeration, you have a slightly lower UID and I'm only 32, but still)

      All you have to do is persuade people to use your name servers instead of the normal ones. There's an infrastructure cost associated with that of course, but there it is. ICANN might kick and scream and maybe even sue, but there's nothing to stop the net being usurped by an enterprising newcomer. It would lead to namespace fragmentation and all sorts of interesting user effects, but it's a possibility.

      I quite like the idea of us geeks using one lot and the general public using another. They can have their own internet with the facebooks and packet shaping and the september that never ends. And we'll have ours and reset it to 1995 style...

  2. Re:Do it! Do it now! by gclef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Messy. Question: which root do you ask for google.com? All of them? What if they reply with different addresses...which one's right? The fact that there aren't good answers to these questions is a big part of why we've tried to avoid splitting the DNS roots.

  3. Decentralized naming is hard by Josh+Triplett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the one hand, I absolutely want to see control over domain names taken out of anyone's hands (not just ICANN's).

    However, decentralized naming is a *hard* problem. Only one entity can control a given domain name, and something, either human or automated, must decide who gets that domain name. Whether by fiat or general consensus, some process must exist to handle the case where multiple people want the same name. ("First come first served" does not suffice unless you have fees or some other measure to prevent mass registration, and decentralized control makes those measures difficult.)

    (Numbers, by comparison, prove quite trivial; just use public keys. But people don't like typing in long numbers, they like typing in *names*.)

  4. We'll call it UCANNT... by moxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We'll call it UCANNT *rimshot*

    Universal Co-op for Assigned Names, Numbers and Timeservers

    Seriously though, I do think a backup system would be a good idea....It's needed in order to stop the growing attempts (that I think we're going to see a lot more of) to control, censor, filter, and police the internet....Due to the practicalities involved in how the system works, I am not certain how plausible it would be to have two competing systems while everything is working smoothly, and there are other points where the system could be messed with, but having a framework in place might not be a bad idea with the political realities we live in...

  5. Re:Do it! Do it now! by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Skip the government part (though, honestly, I see no reason why they'll operate the way you think they will)...what about businesses? For example: Apple.com. There are several companies that can claim honest ownership of the "apple" name as a business title (apple computers, apple records, etc). If each of them buys the apple.com name in a different root, which one's "right"? All of them have reason to argue they are...do you expect users to have to surf to all of them one by one to find the "right" apple.com? Seriously? So now the users have to know about all possible DNS roots? yuk.

    You seem to be assuming that the DNS with multiple roots will have very few name collisions except for government-caused ones...I don't think that's a safe assumption at all.

  6. Re:Sour grapes? by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it ain't broke don't fix it.

    I think he feels that it is broke.
    I think a big problem is that ICANN gives too many questionable organisations too much say into what happens. I include in that list, MPAA RIAA and their alternatives in the remaining 96% of the planet, various spooks and one particular national government.
    I suspect people here can think of many more names...

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  7. Re:Static IPv6 addresses for everyone. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, there's no way you're going to convince me to remember one IP6 address, let alone a bunch of them. That's 32 hexadecimal digits.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  8. Re:Sour grapes? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about this? The Pirate Bay is too public to pull of a stunt like this, but some less known domains (like the ones seized a few moments ago) spurr less activism against it, so they can slowly roll it in and make it a norm. (like the antiterrorism bullshit going around)

  9. Re:Sour grapes? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the IFPI organization doesn't have any more right to the domain than sunde did.

    Leaving it unrenewed is their friggin' problem, not anyone elses. No average joe can go bitch "that dude stole my domain!", "It says here you didn't renew it", "So what, it's mine! I forgot!", why should MAFIAA have that right?

  10. Re:Sour grapes? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But that doesn't mean letting self proclaimed pirates be in charge

    What's wrong with being a 'pirate'? I fail to see how that's relevant to this.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!