[HN Gopher] Proposed Renewal of the Registry Agreement for .NET
___________________________________________________________________
Proposed Renewal of the Registry Agreement for .NET
Author : thesuperbigfrog
Score : 52 points
Date : 2023-04-20 12:05 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.icann.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.icann.org)
| ksec wrote:
| Arh, ICANN and VeriSign. Both have deliberately stalled on .Web
| kensai wrote:
| I found the explanation of the various domain names the best:
| https://www.name.com/domains/net
|
| If you want to check any other domain name, just substitute the
| "net" with your own name. https://www.name.com/domains/
| Zecc wrote:
| This is about the .net TLD and has nothing to do with .NET the
| framework.
|
| It doesn't take long to realize this, it's even outright obvious
| considering ICANN is involved, but still... It seems weird to me
| that they would write .NET and .COM rather than .net and .com
| even if DNS is case-insensitive.
| saghm wrote:
| After over 20 years of ambiguity, I don't think I'd honestly
| have the energy to worry about this if I were the person at
| ICANN deciding the headlines; it could have easily been avoided
| had the .NET framework just picked a less confusing name.
| lolinder wrote:
| Using all caps goes back to the very first RFCs, so they
| probably stick to that for historical reasons even if the
| modern convention is lowercase.
|
| https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc920#page-2
| mindslight wrote:
| I think in the past, internet signals were much weaker so
| EVERYONE HAD TO YELL to get their message through. Either
| that or 1-bits were in short supply.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| NO, HERE IS THE REASON WHY:
|
| - THE INTERNET STARTED IN THE 1960'S.
|
| - THE FIRST VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS THAT CAME OUT IN THE 70'S
| DIDN'T SUPPORT LOWERCASE, E.G. THE DEC VT05.
|
| - PHYSICAL TELETYPES AT THE TIME ALSO WEREN'T GUARANTEED TO
| SUPPORT LOWERCASE, LIKE THE DECWRITER LA05.
| derefr wrote:
| Fun fact: the earliest versions of the ASCII standard only
| had encodings for uppercase letters.
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII#History)
| Xorakios wrote:
| FORTRAN, COBOL and BASIC all used all caps in the 70s
| when I started to learn programming. People thought I was
| a nutcase for abandoning cursive in high school!
|
| And don't get me started on punch card programming in
| college in 1980 :)
| eyegor wrote:
| Despite ~60 years of updates, the fortran language still
| isn't case sensitive.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Why were people still using punchcards in the 80s?
| tanseydavid wrote:
| To make confetti out of the chads for parades. ;)
| Xorakios wrote:
| Alas, at Princeton University 1980 that was the only way
| to submit programs. I was doing tech support for
| professors as part of my work-study package and a couple
| hours a week on a green-bar paper teletype sorta like
| this was a huge benefit: https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/05/teletyp...
| cesarb wrote:
| Fun trick (I don't know if it still works): on the login
| prompt of your Linux (or other Unix) machine, type your
| username in all caps. This sets some strange termios(3)
| modes, which convert all lowercase output to UPPERCASE and
| all UPPERCASE input to lowercase. These modes are, AFAIK,
| for compatibility with these uppercase-only terminals.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Just tried it. Didn't work.
|
| (I tried it on a regular Linux virtual terminal (as is my
| normal way--I don't use a graphical login manager), with
| my password in correct/inverted/upper/lower case, none
| work. It's conceivable a pam module could make it work or
| something like that. I'm not investigating.)
| tracker1 wrote:
| good luck with multi-case passwords...
| codetrotter wrote:
| Wait. You guys use passwords on your computers??
| zdimension wrote:
| You got any more info on that? I can't find anything
| online that talks about this trick
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| Additions in section 2.14 of the changes / redline document
| (https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreement/redlin...)
| are concerning:
|
| "Registrar further acknowledges and agrees that Verisign reserves
| the right to deny, cancel, redirect or transfer any registration
| or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock,
| hold or similar status, as it deems necessary, in its unlimited
| and sole discretion, for the purposes set forth in Section
| 2.7(b)(ii) of this Agreement."
| rasengan wrote:
| This makes sense since they are leasing domain names to you and
| not selling them to you.
|
| You don't own your Domain on the ICANN internet - and yes, that
| sucks.
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| >> You don't own your Domain on the ICANN internet - and yes,
| that sucks.
|
| True, but how should disputes be resolved?
|
| Under this proposed change, if Verisign decides to cancel the
| lease for your .net domain, what can you do about it?
| noja wrote:
| Do you know why?
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| Section 2.7b states:
|
| "Registrar's registration agreement with each Registered Name
| Holder, shall also include the following:
|
| (i) a provision prohibiting the Registered Name Holder from
| distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing,
| pharming, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement,
| fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise
| engaging in activity contrary to applicable law and providing
| (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures)
| consequences for such activities, including suspension of the
| registration of the Registered Name
|
| (ii) a provision that requires the Registered Name Holder to
| acknowledge and agree that Verisign reserves the right to deny,
| cancel, redirect or transfer any registration or transaction,
| or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar
| status, as it deems necessary, in its unlimited and sole
| discretion:
|
| (1) to comply with specifications adopted by any industry group
| generally recognized as authoritative with respect to the
| Internet (e.g., RFCs),
|
| (2) to correct mistakes made by Verisign or any Registrar in
| connection with a domain name registration,
|
| (3) for the non-payment of fees to Verisign;
|
| (4) to protect against imminent and substantial threats to the
| security and stability of the Registry TLD, System, Verisign's
| nameserver operations or the internet,
|
| (5) to ensure compliance with applicable law, government rules
| or regulations, or pursuant to any legal order or subpoena of
| any government, administrative or governmental authority, or
| court of competent jurisdiction, and/or
|
| (6) to stop or prevent any violations of any terms and
| conditions of this Agreement, the Operational Requirements, or
| pursuant to Verisign's Registry Agreement with ICANN; and
|
| (iii) a provision requiring the Registered Name Holder to
| indemnify, defend and hold harmless Verisign and its
| subcontractors, and its and their directors, officers,
| employees, agents, and affiliates from and against any and all
| claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including
| reasonable legal fees and expenses arising out of or relating
| to, for any reason whatsoever, the Registered Name Holder's
| domain name registration. The registration agreement shall
| further require that this indemnification obligation survive
| the termination or expiration of the registration agreement."
|
| So basically Verisign has full authority to do whatever it
| wants regarding .net TLD domain names in order to prevent
| crimes and bad behavior, comply with laws, correct errors (who
| defines what is an error), and collect fees.
|
| Many people are upset with these proposed changes because there
| are no recourse procedures outlined for domain holders.
|
| If you hold a .net domain which you paid for and have been
| using for years and they decide that you are doing something
| they do not like or someone else claims ownership rights for
| your domain and convinces Verisign that they should have it,
| your domain can be forcibly transferred from you.
|
| If you disagree with what they do, too bad.
| lolinder wrote:
| Below are the purposes in 2.7(b)(ii). Note that the prior
| agreement already included purposes 1-3, but 4-6 are new.
|
| > (1) to comply with specifications adopted by any industry
| group generally recognized as authoritative with respect to the
| Internet (e.g., RFCs),
|
| > (2) to correct mistakes made by Verisign or any Registrar in
| connection with a domain name registration, or
|
| > (3) for the non-payment of fees to Verisign; and,
|
| > (4) to protect against imminent and substantial threats to
| the security and stability of the Registry TLD, System,
| Verisign's nameserver operations or the internet,
|
| > (5) to ensure compliance with applicable law, government
| rules or regulations, or pursuant to any legal order or
| subpoena of any government, administrative or governmental
| authority, or court of competent jurisdiction, and/or
|
| > (6) to stop or prevent any violations of any terms and
| conditions of this Agreement, the Operational Requirements, or
| pursuant to Verisign's Registry Agreement with ICANN;
| derefr wrote:
| > (1) to comply with specifications adopted by any industry
| group generally recognized as authoritative with respect to
| the Internet (e.g., RFCs),
|
| This clause is probably the original motivation for this
| subsection (with 4, 5, and 6 being "obvious" corollaries of
| it): the .net TLD is the (de-facto?) place where Autonomous
| Systems expect to be able to register conventionally-named
| zones (format AS\d+\\.NET), under which they then often
| register DNS names for things like backbone Internet
| switches.
|
| Insofar as these ASes might be binding control-plane
| components to network middleboxes through these DNS names
| (unlikely, given the layer of the stack they operate on, but
| you never know), a takeover of their AS\d+\\.NET domain-name
| would enable a wide-ranging attack on Internet
| infrastructure.
|
| Additionally -- though much less likely -- you _might_ be
| able to do some nefarious things just by squatting on an
| AS\d+\\.NET domain name. If some engineer at the NOC is new
| there, and worked for other AS NOCs who _did_ use AS\d+\\.NET
| domain names to home equipment, but their new job doesn 't,
| but they don't _know_ that yet, they might misconfigure a
| system in a way that 'd be innocuous if the domain was
| unregistered, but very bad if it was registered to an
| attacker.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Is this a requirement from the US government for Verisign?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-20 23:03 UTC)