Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Peter Sunde Wants To Create Alternative To ICANN

Posted by Soulskill on from the icann-see-why dept.

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."

61 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 Glendale2x · · Score: 4, Informative

      If redirecting NXDOMAIN to partnered search results pages

      VeriSign != ICANN

      --
      this is my sig
    3. Re:You can't compete with root. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Verisign should have lost their root server assignment 10 years ago. Between their wildcard allocation for *.com a few years back, their pitiful handling of IPv6, their pretense at innocence when they assign domain authorities to spam hosting domains, their support of "reserving" domains by abusive registrars who blackmail people who search domains to see if they're available, and their refusal too cooperate with domain owners who want to reliable provide reverse DNS, they're not competent and their effective monopoly should be transferred.

    4. Re:You can't compete with root. by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If redirecting NXDOMAIN to partnered search results pages and killing a bunch of anti-spam scripts

      You mean an anti-spam technique (of fairly limited effectiveness) of reverse path validation, through making extra domain lookups for the forward DNS hostname of the Return Envelope, not called for by the SMTP RFCs, which also place extra (unwanted) load on DNS servers?

      Please don't confuse ICANN with Network Solutions / Verisign (Sitefinder). By the way, the SiteFinder Fiasco you refer to ended when ICANN was going to file a lawsuit Network Solutions over "sitefinder" and reached a settlement. Settlement: ICANN agreed to discontinue the sitefinder service / stop wildcard resolving immediately, and will seek permission under ICANN rules before introducing any new service such as that.
      But, in Exchange, as part of this settlement, NSol's contract to be operator for the .COM / .NET TLDs was changed so ICANN guarantees to renew the contract perpetually at the end of every contract term (Unless there is a proven breach), AND, also, the settlement gave Network Solutions a right to increase prices 7% every 4 out of the 6 years of every contract term after 2007, with no justification.

      NSol can increase prices in 6 out of 6 years, if a cost justification is given in 2 of those years.

      Note that back in 2007, .NET and .COM prices were capped by the registry at $6. Today they are approximately $8. Domain prices per-domain are getting more expensive, and the stated justification is "higher volume of DNS queries", what do you think about that?

      So the whole 'sitefinder thing' was a win win win for Network solutions, because ICANN essentially got themselves a free perpetual contract, which ICANN justifies on the basis of "A perpetual contract provides greater stability for the Internet"; neverminding the fact the contract becomes less favorable for the community every year NSol chooses to raise prices.

      Still... things are "stable", and doesn't matter that much that NSol got rewarded for their attempted sitefinder moneygrab does it?

      endorsing ridiculously stupid shit like .eco, .xxx, .jobs and .tel happen

      Apparently it wasn't that 'stupid'... I mean, someone had to pay $50,000 just to apply, and put significant capital down to have a registry that would meet ICANN's minimal technical standards for a stable registry. The letters in the TLD are just one factor; the decision to 'add a TLD' or not are almost all about the technical aspects of a proposed TLD and how many sites and domain registrars are interested in the TLD.

      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 just defines the rules and contracts the registry services, I believe you are again blaming ICANN for an individual registrar and US government thing

      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.

      Now there's something we can agree on. Unix hacker types could do better, if only they could get the financing, and backing from the corporate types.

      It would probably be good enough though to have an association serving a different group of corporate whores.... for example, ISPs instead of the WIPO, RIAA, registrar, pro-squatter , and pro-advertising/pro-marketing folks.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:You can't compete with root. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      And why didn't ICANN start the process of "firing" VeriSign immediately after the incident?

      That was what was going to happen. Instead, something very strange happened. The final outcome was that ICANN SETTLED with VeriSign. But this was kind of like the Google books settlement, in that the settlement was EXTREMELY FAVORABLE to VeriSign.

      Prior to this settlement, the .COM / .NET registry was a FOR BID contract that would come up for bidding and renewal every 6 years. The registry price was capped at $6 per domain per year under the contract at the time.

      In the settlement ICANN agreed to guarantee to renew their contract at the end of the term, unless it is proven that VeriSign substantially breaches the new contract, they have the contract perpetually. [paraphrasing], "For the sake of Internet stability" (as ICANN people put it)

      The settlement from the SECSAC process also Gave NSOL the right to raise prices. The settlement gave them the right to raise prices 7% 4 out of 6 years of every contract term after 2007, with no cost justification needed.

      The VeriSign/Network Solutions Internic can raise prices all 6 years of the contract term, if they provide a cost justification for 2 of those years. In 2010 they raised prices for .COM and .NET domains, and publicly someone indicated a cost justification of "Increased number of DNS lookups being performed" (against .COM and .NET registry servers)

      I think 5 years from now, .COM and .NET TLDs will be prices by the registry at approximately $12 instead of approximately $8. We can look forward to paying $100 per year to the cheapest registries to renew .COMs, within this decade or the next, just like it used to be before competitive registrars.

      Oh right... "competitive registrars" doesn't matter much, when there is a for-profit global registry everyone has to pay who has a guaranteed right to raise prices, and a guaranteed right to not get fired, because a legal settlement means ICANN legally cannot bring the contract up for bid, unless NSol screws up.

    7. 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...

    8. Re:You can't compete with root. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      their refusal too cooperate with domain owners who want to reliable provide reverse DNS

      What the heck are you talking about? What is your beef with their reverse DNS handling?

      This is a IANA / RIR function, and I have never seen any issues or mishandling of RDNS by the registry.

    9. Re:You can't compete with root. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Absolutely. What needs to be done, and this will only be accomplished with enough international pressure, is to take control away from the US government. ICANN or no ICANN, the one in control is the US government.

      Don't come with the "DARPA in the 60's" argument. It's not about what the net was 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, it's about what it's now: A worldwide network. That means it shouldn't be governed by a single country. We need to create a new council that will manage the internet:

      It'll be an international council, with the following governing body:

      - An official representative from each member country.
      - A representative from each software/hardware development that plays a major role in the net. For example, the ISC (BIND, DHCPD), The Mozilla Fundation (Firefox), CISCO, etc. would get representatives.
      - Other organizations and major players that are active participants of this thing we call the internet. For example, the IEEE, The Free Software Fundation, the EFF, Intel, Apple, Microsoft, etc. would get representatives.

      None of this entities would get more than one representative even if they qualified on more than one category, and each representative gets one vote, and all votes count equally. We should also try to keep the amount of member from each category sort of equal, so, considering ~190 countries, we should get 190 from the other two categories, for a grand total of ~600 members.

      This entity would operate under its own constitution, and act as a democracy. The technical infrastructure would be absolutely distributed around the world, with enough redundancy and no central authority.

      That is the only way that we can get a truly free internet.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    10. Re:You can't compete with root. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, that would give each individual government more control over its citizens. Giving them that power would quickly turn the internet everywhere into what it is right now in China.

      Governments can't be individually trusted, and localized versions of the internet are a bad idea, against the very definition of the internet.

      That's why in the scheme I propose, all countries together are only 30% of the votes. I am a wise-bearded Unix geek, and I still don't agree with turning control over to wise-bearded Unix geeks. We can be real assholes too :). No group of people can be fully trusted to make choices for all of us, that's why we need different groups with different interests to keep each other in line.

      The chances that several governments, or several companies, or several software developers cooperate with each other to do something evil are very high. That's why we see things like the ACTA being passed by politicians from different countries, while 90% of the public disagrees.

      Now, the chances of seeing the Free Software Fundation, CISCO, the US, Switzerland, Venezuela and the ISC cooperating to pass some terrible legislation is virtually nonexistent.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    11. Re:You can't compete with root. by evanism · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have seen this as absolutely inevitable for about 10 years now.

      Admittedly, I am an old warhorse and remember registering domains for free with a guy who kept the whole root under his desk at Uni (Robert Ells, Uni Melbourne, Aust). Then the evil MelbourneIT took it over, screwed everyone and commercialised a public resource.

      I used to, in 1996, use AltDNS which is sort of what is proposed now. It failed, but the actions of government have shown we need a better DNS that is not subject to the actions of a single government. (e.g. dot com is a very bad idea!... why isnt each countries own root dotcom dependant on geo!

      An alternative DNS is definitely on the cards.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    12. Re:You can't compete with root. by lordmetroid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If an internet controlled by one government wasn't bad enough, you want several governments to be able to have a simple access to the censorship button. I will root for Peter Sunde's effort and make an internet controlled by its users.

  2. Do it! Do it now! by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An alternative name registry service would do wonders to cripple the whole "internet censorship" bandwagon that has been going on recently. Blacklists? Rendered at the very least 2X as difficult to implement on a national scale, simply because the clients you are attempting to prevent from accessing content can reach that content by using the alternate name resolution service.

    It would make measures like the Australian blacklist falderall all that much more difficult to actually pull off, and would render efforts like COICA similarly difficult.

    Do it. Do it now.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Do it! Do it now! by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Take the recent "seizures" of torrent sites by the US government; In order for the government to keep track of DNS entries that it has "Confiscated", it has to apply it to easily identifiable name servers. (In this case, something along the lines of "Seized.xxxx.NS") Since it would become an administrative nightmare to NOT use some form of naming convention for such "Blocked" sites, it should be fairly simple to resolve "Which" IP addresses and name servers to accept as entries/accept entries from.

      If the two IPs match, Good for you.

      If they dont, does one get resolved by a "blacklist placeholder" NS? If so, ignore that entry and use the redundant one.

      If they dont, and neither points to a known placeholder, "ASK", allow the user to try both and then pick the appropriate one.

    3. Re:Do it! Do it now! by dch24 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, messy.

      To identify google.com, use dnssec. To identify trusted root certs, either use the ones that come with your browser (just like SSL) or add/remove certs manually.

      Ok, I can think of immediate issues with that. All I'm saying is, not that hard to solve.

      So, problems with using a certificate store, like the one that comes with your browser:
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Do it! Do it now! by wierd_w · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose the first one could be overcome with some local CA blacklists. (why Mozilla accepts a chineese CA I dont know. Seems suicidal.)

      The RST packet issue becomes difficult to address without implementing some kind of homebrew device to sit between your router and your private network, that does DPI to look for the RST signals and filter them, then do some creative ACK to make sure the sender didn't send a legitimate one. This would slow network access when ATT sends the abusive RST packets, but slow is better than unstable.

      With modern linksys firmware hacks being available, such an approach could be implemented into the router itself. It would be an interesting thing for the router to automatically log and report on too.

    6. Re:Do it! Do it now! by wierd_w · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Easily enough resolved with a firm root-level policy:

      Mirror ICANN, EXCEPT for blacklists.

      The idea is a not-for-profit alternate root. Not a "For profit" alternate root.

    7. Re:Do it! Do it now! by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, and that's the reason why we have ISP DNS, Google's 8.8.8.8 offering and OpenDNS all offering lower-tier servers so if you want to know where Google.com went, you can ask Google. Most of the DNS fouls such as taking all NXDOMAINs and returning a "search portal" are done by the low-level guys, not ICANN.

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

      DNSSec, won't solve the multiple-root problem, though. If each root has a separate trust entry point, and the sub-entries are correctly signed, you won't be able to tell which one's accurate, just that the answers are verified by the root. You'll still be left with very confused users.

      This happens today with SSL, it's just harder to see: if two different SSL registries issue certs for "google.com", which one's right? If you trust both of them, then the answer is "both." The same will be true for the multiple DNS roots if they use DNSSec: you'll be able to tell for certain that the answer is correct from the point of the root, but which root is *right* will be far less clear.

    9. Re:Do it! Do it now! by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An alternative name registry service would do wonders to cripple the whole "internet censorship" bandwagon that has been going on recently. Blacklists? Rendered at the very least 2X as difficult to implement on a national scale, simply because the clients you are attempting to prevent from accessing content can reach that content by using the alternate name resolution service.

      For five minutes or less before the proponents of the blacklist say "This goes for those guys too."

    10. Re:Do it! Do it now! by gclef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're just going to mirror ICANN's root, why bother? (And why would ICANN or anyone tell you what the blacklisted domains are? They'll just drop them from the list of registered domains.)

    11. Re:Do it! Do it now! by c0lo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would make measures like the Australian blacklist falderall all that much more difficult to actually pull off, and would render efforts like COICA similarly difficult.

      Do it. Do it now.

      If it is for making the Big Brother's job slightly more difficult, until yet-another-TDL-DNS gets created, maybe you can trust some OpenNIC DNS-es? Just asking.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    12. Re:Do it! Do it now! by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they dont, and neither points to a known placeholder, "ASK", allow the user to try both and then pick the appropriate one.

      How is this supposed to work? I could register facebook.com put up a phishing page that looks exact the same and then if we used your system, how does the user know which one is right?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    13. Re:Do it! Do it now! by gclef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they all (intentionally, and by design) respond with the *same* *data*. The fact that there are 13 of them doesn't change the fact that there is only one root *zone*. What's being proposed is having different root zones, and so the assumption that the different roots will answer with the same information goes out the window.

    14. Re:Do it! Do it now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You would be making the mistake anyone who wants an alternate root gives a crap about any commercial organisation.
      We as humans deal with name space collisions every day, with our very own names, I think if we can handle it in real life, we can deal with it on here.
      As with all open source things, you are free not to participate, but you can always join later.

  3. Static IPv6 addresses for everyone. by steeleyeball · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No more of this Pansy DNS crap. Know your IP address like you know your phone number. Cut these clowns off at the legs. Free the net to the people who know how to use it and won't download viruses to their own computers thinking it's antivirus software... Take charge by taking responsibility from those who don't care and don't know!

    1. Re:Static IPv6 addresses for everyone. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      Know your IP address like you know your phone number.

      You mean like how I don't know it at all? That's what address books are for, and DNS is a gigantic global address book.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Static IPv6 addresses for everyone. by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what address books are for, and DNS is a gigantic global address book.

      Except other people keep coming in and changing your address book so you go to visit your mother and end up at some porn store or the DHS instead.

      The centralised nature of DNS has been a huge flaw in the Internet for a long time, and it should really be replaced. The problem is coming up with a better solution.

    3. Re:Static IPv6 addresses for everyone. by Demonantis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was called internic and it could easily come back because of this. Especially for sites the government is trying to block. The next most likely thing would be multiple DNS networks and everyone just gets used to having to switch depending on what they want to go to. Could easily be rectified at the browser level by "dialing in" that session's DNS ip. Eventually the most bipartisan DNSs would get used the most. ISPs would actively pursue an effective DNS system to maintain their consumer base in areas with no monopoly. There is nothing limiting there being many DNSs other then the fact that consumers would have to learn more about how the internet actually makes the magic happen and the general confusion that would ensue from that. Plus all the phishing of domain names.

    4. 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
    5. Re:Static IPv6 addresses for everyone. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2
      ...so you go to visit your mother and end up at some porn store or the DHS instead.

      My mother runs a porn store on the second floor of the local DHS building, you insensitive clod.

      Or "in Russia, going to porn store results in visit to mother."

      Whatever.

    6. Re:Static IPv6 addresses for everyone. by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The centralised nature of DNS has been a huge flaw in the Internet for a long time, and it should really be replaced. The problem is coming up with a better solution.

      OK, how about this:

      You take the existing SSL certificate authorities and the existing certificates for websites, which contain their domain names. You create a new "root" which is really a distributed collection of root servers in which anyone may participate. Website operators send their SSL certificates to any one of the root servers (ideally one trusted enough to propagate it), showing that their domain has been verified by a certificate authority as belonging to them. The website operator also signs the IP address of the website with the website's public key and a timestamp (so that updated IP addresses have newer timestamps) and sends the signed IP address(es) to the root server. The root server propagates the website's certificate and the signed IP address to all of the other root servers. If the certificate is signed by a CA which is trusted by the root server, it then starts handing out the signed IP address in response to queries for that domain name (we can even use the existing DNS protocol for this). If a CA starts maliciously signing certificates for websites for people who don't really own them, "your" root server can stop trusting that CA (and if it doesn't, you can get a new root server).

      The advantage of this design is that you can't remove websites from the system except by the CA revoking their SSL certificates, which if it happens will just create a market for "bulletproof" certificate authorities. The website is using its own key to sign its IP address and once that signature is distributed to all the thousands of distributed root servers, there is no central location to remove it. At best a different CA under the influence of a censorial government could be coerced into signing a certificate for the domain name to the government instead of the owner, but all that requires is for your root server in the case of conflict between CAs for the same domain to prefer the bulletproof/incorruptible CAs to the corruptible ones.

      At that point you can eliminate ICANN's role in DNS and replace it with a covenant between all the certificate authorities not to issue a certificate for a domain already issued by another certificate authority to anyone other than the same party, the consequence for violating the covenant being that the various distributed root servers will stop trusting that CA.

      Since anyone sufficiently trustworthy can be a CA and anyone can run a root server because all the root servers are doing is caching a bunch of signed certificates and signed IP addresses, you get fully-distributed secure DNS with no ICANN.

  4. Re:Sour grapes? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Funny

    ICANN declares man loser, loser vows to replace ICANN. Details at 11, or at 10 on that UHF station we co-own.

  5. 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*.)

    1. Re:Decentralized naming is hard by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hard it may be, but it has been solved, and all the necessary protocols and software exist to implement the solution. All you need is an alternative organization and the ability to convince the people you are interested in convincing to use the new servers.

      As for the policy challenges you mention, Mr. Sunde doesn't *like* the way ICANN solved those problems. In fact he detests it so much he's willing (or thinks he's willing) to chuck the policy and organization that controls it out the window. Or perhaps he'll figure out a way to use his preferred servers and fall back to ICANN's DNS.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Decentralized naming is hard by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why continue with the concept of name ownership at all? It should be technically impossible to own a name, in the same way that it should be impossible to monopolize ideas.

      Let people and entities use whatever name they want; the remaining problem is to verify that you are talking to the right host, but you should need to do that anyway. Invariably, any sort of central authority can and will be subverted. What is necessary is some other means of conveying trust, wether that is a web of trust, or some other out of band option.

      This is what I believe we should strive for. The distributed naming system and trust system are orthogonal problems, but need to integrate in a convenient way. So, it is still a hard problem, just not in the same way.

    3. Re:Decentralized naming is hard by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The model underlying Bitcoin may provide a solution. Basically do the same thing, but with domains instead of virtual coins. The peers self-regulate the work required to solve the next block such that a fixed number of blocks (domains) are allocated per unit time; the allocation would be "first come first served", but there would be no possibility of mass registration. Once a name is allocated it can be updated at-will by the one holding its private key, or transferred to another user. Updates and transfers would take the place of Bitcoin's transactions, and be included as part of the next block.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:Decentralized naming is hard by burris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      after Zooko: names can be secure, memorable, or global - pick two. DNS is memorable and global but not secure. Public keys are secure and global but not memorable.

    5. Re:Decentralized naming is hard by Tacvek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In case you don't know, the root zone is a text file that is only a little over 200 kB. It has only a handful (relatively speaking) of domains. The official root zone is published, and you could set up your own DNS server that serves it. [1]

      The important servers are the gtld zone servers. Those are the ones with millions of domains. They are the ones that the federal government is meddling with. They handle insane volumes of traffic [2]. To the best of my knowledge the gTLD zone files are not publicly published, meaning that it would not be possible to set up an alternative version of it like you seem to be proposing.

      Footnotes:
        [1] Granted, you would need to set up your recursive DNS resolver to use your root server, but that is easy enough to do. Even DNSsec would work fine in such, since DNSsec only authenticates the response, and does not care who sent it.

      [2] Thankfully the DNS system has caching, or it would be cost prohibitive to continue to run the GTLD servers.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  6. Why? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't he just ask the Chinese to redirect the domain to his server?

  7. 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...

  8. Re:But... by Josh+Triplett · · Score: 3, Informative

    Many secure peer-to-peer systems exist, generally based on cryptography; often they provide more security than centralized systems.

    For instance, Tor uses secure cryptography to provide anonymity in a way that just wouldn't work in a centralized system. i2p uses cryptographic security as well.

  9. Part of me would like to do this. by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's the same part of me that, were I holding a cigarette lighter and a stick of dynamite, would be tempted to light the stick and throw it like they do in the movies, just to see what an exploding stick of dynamite really looks like. There's been so much greed and stupidity around the DNS, and it would be so *feasible* for someone to set up an independent alternative, I'd sort of like to see what it would look like when the existing system is blown to kingdom come.

    However -- were I ever to be holding an actual stick of dynamite in my hands, the part of me that tends to say things like "this is not the optimum time to make an impulsive decision" would become quite strident. It's not that I would never, under any circumstance light a stick of dynamite and throw it. It's just that it being a really cool idea wouldn't be enough to make me try it until I'd thought through the consequences very, very carefully.

    And as it stands, the DNS system does me more good than it has ever harmed me, and likewise for the vast majority of people who use it. It might be that giving *serious consideration* to a competitive system would do a lot of good, but a competition between two systems in which both survived would almost certainly be a bad thing.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. 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.
  11. There already is one by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OpenNIC. While it mirrors the ICANN addresses, it also adds several new TLDs (.oss, .geek, .parody, even .gopher) which can be easily used. This is but one of the many alternative DNS roots, but it's the most popular, and it's democratically-run.

    1. Re:There already is one by juliandemarchi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would like to encourage anyone interested in the alt-dns system like Peter, to join OpenNIC (http://www.opennicproject.org). It has great ideals, and is openly and democratically run. Anyone can join this great project and contribute to it. OpenNIC has been around since 2000, and is still going well!

    2. Re:There already is one by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What does "democratically run" mean? Every single user gets one vote, and all decisions now matter how trivial are voted upon? Or your vote depends upon how much you pay? Or you've got a core group of board members who vote?

      Saying something is democratic is like saying nothing because the term is too broad. Usually when I hear someone say "it's more democratic" they really mean "it works closer to the way I want". Who's to say ICANN is not democratic? They've got board members who vote. Sure it's not as "democratic" as some would like but it certainly wasn't set up as a dictatorship or monarchy.

      And the ICANN did not steal any domain; they took a directive from WIPO. The links in the summary above are very misleading and extremely one sided. Basically someone forgot to reregister IFPI.COM (probably some IT guy lost a job over it) and someone snagged it, then gave it (for free) to Pirate Bay. IFPI wanted it back and it was resolved by a WIPO ruling. The only problem is that it was not resolved the way that the anarchists wanted. No one in their right mind would think that the Pirate Bay acquired ifpi.com fairly and openly.

      One thing that could be fixed is to lock down lapsed domain names for a period of time unless the original owner explicitly gives it up, thus preventing squatters from coming in.

    3. Re:There already is one by juliandemarchi · · Score: 2, Informative

      What does "democratically run" mean? Every single user gets one vote, and all decisions now matter how trivial are voted upon? Or your vote depends upon how much you pay? Or you've got a core group of board members who vote?

      Democratically run in this instances, means that users who join the OpenNIC mailing list, have the power to vote if they wish on any issue. Anything done within OpenNIC, is first discussed with the members, then motioned for a vote. The down side is, things move slowly, but thats the price you pay to have such system. If a new user has an idea, they can start a discussion and have that diea voted on, then acted upon. Everyone has a voice.

  12. Alternatives to the signed root by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, most of us with half a brain _already_ don't trust ICANN at all. With the signed root, you really just need to push broken DS records to invalidate entire portions of the DNSSEC namespace. The UCSA (United Corporate States of America) is quite clear that it wants to retain control, AND wants to have a "kill switch".

    Well, DNSSEC *IS* by design a kill switch. It has to be, in order to work. So, we have the ccTLD root keys manually locked into our resolvers, not just the signed root. There are ways against a root blackout, if the trust anchors for the ccTLDs are still valid. We assume the gTLDs will be offline anyway, because even good people like the ones behind ISC don't want to be shot in the head for treason.

    Adding extra (signed!) namespaces is equally easy, you don't have to override the root. In fact, you do not WANT to override the root, running a root server is not something you can do without lots of preparation, and *real* DoS-shielded setups. A _simple_ root server takes: Two BGP routers (one does the forwarding, the other keeps the BGP prefix up with the next_hop of the forwarding router, to make sure any DoS does not migrate to the next node should this one go down), two hardware linespeed load balancers (gigabit ethernet at least), and four to six root servers. Add two hardware linespeed traffic scrubbers if you cannot just lose that root node to a DDoS.

    The root server runs a specific software that only does autoritative DNS/NSEC1 *very fast*, and they don't contain much data, you need TLD node farms for that. Non-joke root servers (serving more than 10GB/s) are considerably larger (the same size as a TLD server farm). And the routing and traffic scrubbing hardware is damn expensive.

    So, that's about US$ 100k per small anycast root node, and >US$ 1M for really large ones. And you need around 200 of those around the world if you want to do a proper job, latency to root servers has to be *low*. And a new TLD that is to be used for real would need a lot of the really large nodes.

    So, you really want some sort of P2P DNSSEC, to switch from a centralized model to a distributed model. You will NOT be able to wrestle the TLDs from USCA control otherwise.

    Good luck, it is a _hard_ problem.

  13. Re:Sour grapes? by Rijnzael · · Score: 2, Informative

    He's "crying" about them stealing a domain he legally paid for.

  14. Non Profit by retech · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So by a non profit organization they actually mean that when their bills are paid their salary just keeps increasing? This is just as much as scam as the single family owned and operated ISBN system. It's a wonder that anyone on this planet trusts a US based business anymore.

  15. Re:Sour grapes? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait, so a bunch of spooks and RIAA and MPAA folks have their claws into the ICANN, and the ICANN just revoked access to "one of Sunde's domains" (mysteriously unnamed!!!), but Pirate bay remains online.

    We're supposed to extrapolate from this that there is a domain of Sunde's that the MPAA / RIAA want offline MORE than pirate bay? Riiiiiiight. How about telling everyone what domain it was so we can judge for ourselves whether or not ICANN is acting in bad faith; I may not trust the MPAA / RIAA, but Im not entirely sure I want to take the word of the guy running pirate bay, either.

  16. 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)

    --
    Pulsed Media Seedboxes
  17. 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?

    --
    Pulsed Media Seedboxes
  18. Re:We have no other choice by juliandemarchi · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is already in the works at; http://dot-p2p.org/index.php?title=Main_Page .p2p will soon be incorporated into OpenNIC.

  19. OpenNIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Instead of starting another alt-root DNS system, would it not be better to work cooperatively with an already heavily establish alt-root system, such as OpenNIC (http://opennicproject.org), they've proven previously that, unlike ICANN, they have a working democratic system to their DNS management!

  20. Re:Sour grapes? by jythie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Welcome to how precedent works ^_^ look for victims no one will bother defending and the legal framework is there for when you go after the ones that have defenders.

  21. 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!