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."

30 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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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...

    7. 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.

    8. 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?
    9. 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?
  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 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.

    4. 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.)

  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 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
  4. 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.

  5. Why? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  6. 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...

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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)

  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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!