OT: BitTorrent Based DNS To Counter US Domain Seizures & The Pirate Bay Co-Founder Starting A P2P Based DNS To Take On ICANN

[Christopher Browne]

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Tyler Aviss <tjaviss-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> From personal experience:
>
> I've never really had to put up with racist or nasty sites ... I just go
> there, similar to how I don't hang around racist people. Other than being
> unexpectedly/goatse'ed or rickrolled, is it really an issue?
>
> The biggest issues I've have are shared mediums,which puts the occasional
> asshats in the otherwise-friendly forum, email, or especially
> games/newsgroups.
>
> P2PDNS would neither help nor hinder that though.

I don't think P2PDNS helps the scenario in question.

The *real* problem wasn't about how the root is managed, but rather
the policies used to operate the delegation of .com

Not entirely surprisingly, Verisign, who is the authority managing
.com, whose primary location is in Virginia, not terribly far from
pretty much the entirety of the central portions of US government
apparatus, seem to be fairly willing to listen to requests from the US
government regarding domain names under the zone .com that is under
their management.  They're all in the same neighbourhood.  Well,
Verisign's HQ is just outside the Beltway, so just outside what is
regarded as something of a "reality bending zone."  (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway)

Fiddling with how the root is managed would have ZERO effect on that.

The way to avoid the particular policies in action here would involve
having a domain within some other zone, presumably one managed by an
organization NOT located in the United States.

In browsing the proposal, it amounted to basically defining an
alternative way of doing a root zone, but didn't seem to include
anything surrounding what policy would attend the delegations of names
at lower levels.  Enforcing metapolicies is a legal matter, not a
technical matter.

And going further down that road amounts to reimplementing something like ICANN.

I'd see two directions:
1.  One where the goal is to essentially restart Internet naming from
scratch.  .com, .net, .org, .ca, .us, .de, and so forth are dropped,
as are any existing names within them.  Reboot the Internet...

2.  On the other hand, it might be joining "existing Internet" (the
stuff under the present root) with new TLDs.  I see more muddling of
policy here.

Neither seem very viable.  And unless they did wacky things like
forbidding domains to be delegated within the United States, it
wouldn't prevent the problems that are supposedly the raison d'etre of
such.
-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists