[dns-operations] blockchain DNS

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 01:42:42PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> > this can be fairly called out as negligent and told its their own fault
> as
> > far as DNS registrations in .COM are concerned.
>
> But in a world of thousands of TLDs, many of which seem to be designed
> only to attract defensive registrations (some have called them
> "extortion TLDs", but I would not), that negligence evaluation might
> move.


​The current TLD program is indefensible. Just block the lot of them. They
serve no purpose other than rent seeking. ​

​What I am proposing would be a replacement for the ICANN root zone.

As an introduction strategy, I would initially piggyback on the .com zone
so that registrants had to first show that they owned the corresponding
.com to register in the dot. Eventually, the .com zone would wither and die.



> > squatting is homograph and homophone squatting. So some dispute
> resolution
> > process is essential.
>
> And getting worse, as the populations' writing systems get more
> diverse.
>
> > OK, so there is a UDRP like process, though rather narrower in scope than
> > ICANN's and there is some mechanism whereby these arbitration bodies can
> > post messages that override the first come rule.
>
> This is _the entire rock face_ of the cliff people are proposing to
> climb, and you wave it away.  Why narrower in scope?  Who decides?
>

​homophones and homographs is a lot​ narrower than folk fancying a name and
trying to get it with legal demands.



> What is the mechanism?  What makes this legitimate in different
> countries?  How do you cope with different jurisdictions ruling
> differently?  And so on.


​Know how many legal cases have been brought in connection with WebPKI​
issues?

It is zero. That is not a coincidence. We knew what we were doing.

Provide clear processes with objective criteria and few courts are likely
to second guess you. Courts don't generally issue orders unless they are
sure that they can be complied with.

​Courts have tolerated the law merchant and instruments like letters of
credit for centuries. ​



> This is not a trivial matter.  There were
> good, solid reasons why Jon Postel attempted to punt as much of this
> as possible very far away from IANA.  It is too bad that subsequent
> generations did not follow his lead, but here we are.  Once things
> near the top are open and desirable, we need to find political, not
> technical, answers to these problems.  For there is no technical
> problem.


​These are legal and political ​issues but the technical choices determine
the issues you have to deal with. Get the technology wrong and you have to
deal with more of them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20180127/6a4e0ea7/attachment.html>