Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Network

ICANN/Verisign Proposal Would Allow Any Government To Seize Domain Names (freespeech.com) 91

Posted by BeauHD from the sounding-the-alarm dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader GeorgeK and author at FreeSpeech.com writes: ICANN and Verisign have quietly proposed enormous changes to global domain name policy in their proposed renewal of the .NET registry agreement, which is now open for public comments. They've proposed allowing any government in the world to cancel, redirect, or transfer to their control applicable domain names. This is an outrageous and dangerous proposal that must be stopped, as it does not respect due process. While this proposal is currently only for .NET domain names, presumably they would want to also apply it to other extensions like .COM as those contracts come up for renewal. "This proposal represents a complete government takeover of domain names, with no due process protections for registrants," adds Kirikos. "It would usurp the role of registrars, making governments go directly to Verisign (or any other registry that adopts similar language) to achieve anything they desired. It literally overturns more than two decades of global domain name policy."

Furthermore, Kirikos claims ICANN and Verisign "have deliberately timed the comment period to avoid public scrutiny." He writes: "The public comment period opened on April 13, 2023, and is scheduled to end (currently) on May 25, 2023. However, the ICANN76 public meeting was held between March 11 and March 16, 2023, and the ICANN77 public meeting will be held between June 12 and June 15, 2023. Thus, they published the proposal only after the ICANN76 public meeting had ended (where we could have asked ICANN staff and the board questions about the proposal), and seek to end the public comment period before ICANN77 begins. This is likely not by chance, but by design."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN/Verisign Proposal Would Allow Any Government To Seize Domain Names More

ICANN/Verisign Proposal Would Allow Any Government To Seize Domain Names

Comments Filter:

  • ICANN doing dodgy stuff for the US government? (Score:5, Funny)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @05:10AM (#63464120)
    I cannot believe it, they are so clean and open.

    • They're improving! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They're now doing dodgy stuff for any government. And with them a california corporation, none of any transparency/accountability anything that normally applies to western governments applies to them. Complete sellouts, no recourse whatsoever.

      Long run, this really isn't tenable. But then, last round someone claimed to be working on a fully decentralised DNS replacement, and nothing has happened in the years since. Looks like the tech guys can't take on government on their own.

      • Re:They're improving! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by currently_awake ( 1248758 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @08:58AM (#63464482)
        So Iran can declare the CIA to be terrorists, and sieze all their domains. Yes I realize their goal is to sieze all the Pirate Bay domains without having to play Wack-A-Mole for decades, but that is what will happen. Is there a process for when 2 or more governments want to sieze the same domain? What happens when both Saudi Arabia and Iran try to sieze every single porn domain at the same time (for public indecency)?

      • Long run, .com isn't really tenable. We need for DNS what IANA has done for IP space. The relationship between ICANN and Verisign may look like that of IANA and ARIN, but it's not - because .com is not actually restricted by region. As such, it is a de facto global interest and can't really work under US jurisdiction.

    • Re:ICANN doing dodgy stuff for the US government? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jmccue ( 834797 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @06:51AM (#63464256) Homepage

      More like ICANN is doing this for Fortune 500 Companies. That is where the $ is.

      This will make it easier for Companies to steal domains from individuals who have had a static WEB Pages on their own domain for decades. They could just take it with out paying the person a trivial amount, increasing execs bonuses.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        So Nissan can finally forcibly take nissan.com is what you are saying.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Erioll ( 229536 )
          Should they? Just check Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. Should they have the ability to take it from somebody with that last name? I'd say no. If it's purely for trolling, then OK, I can see an argument, and there should be an open process, but all you need is to bribe literally any tin-pot dictator, and you can yank a domain name officially?

          • 'all you need is to bribe literally any tin-pot dictator, and you can yank a domain name officially?"

            If I'm reading this correctly, governments would only have control of their nation TLDs. Zaire's government, for example, could only seize domain names in .cd.

            The kicker in this is it would give the US government control over .com, .edu, .net, etc., since those are technically all US TLDs.

      • Because Facebook and Youtube is super interested in letting foreign governments take over their domain names! /s

    • Why in the hell would you say this is for the US government? It's almost certainly either because of bribery and extortion by the CHINESE and RUSSIAN governments. When the U.S. government ran the internet entirely there was never any hint of corrupt management like this.

    • If the summary is correct, they are willing to do dodgy stuff for any country in the world.

      How long before Russia, China, North Korea, etc decides to demand for a random .net domain just cos they didnt like the organisation owning the domain or what is hosted in the domain?

  • how long domain names(thus current dns system) will be a thing. My thoughts are the consumers and (most all)businesses are stuck with what ever the governments and rich elites decide.

    • We'll simply get a two-tiered internet. One "official" one with the clean names and one run by the people who got pissed enough by that bullshit and who have the ability to do so.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        We already have different views of name resolution.

        Recently was on a network where 'homeip.net' name I use wouldn't resolve correctly. Turned out their DNS basically looks at all domains handled by afraid and hijacks them in the name of 'anti-phishing'.

      • We'll simply get a two-tiered internet. One "official" one with the clean names and one run by the people who got pissed enough by that bullshit and who have the ability to do so.

        We already have "dark" webs. Even USNET is still around for those who want to communicate from the "underground", so you're kind of talking about people who got pissed decades ago. That said, we're still here talking about someone taking over the Achilles heel of all of it.

        Sounds like those who have the ability to do so, will be trading hosts.txt again.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by unrtst ( 777550 )

        We'll simply get a two-tiered internet. One "official" one with the clean names and one run by the people who got pissed enough by that bullshit and who have the ability to do so.

        I disagreed with their decision to allow for purchase TLDs (top level domains, like .coke instead of .com). However, that means that if anyone disagrees with how any particular TLD is being run, they can just use another one, or even start their own. Let .com/.net/.org die off - who cares.

        There are even alternative root name servers one can use. Routing around this BS is a solved problem for all but those who currently own names under .com/.net that are at risk of getting their name stolen by some governmen

  • Who is Poohs captured asset? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @05:53AM (#63464184)

    This has poo has Pooh written all over it.

    Sure, the suits at Verisign love having all reward and no risk. That's probably just the sales pitch to get useful idiots across the line though.

    • Indeed - *any* government can make a take-down request... so long as they pay the right dollars. Destroying your own reason for existence is now a revenue stream.

    • This has poo has Pooh written all over it.

      Not really. China is so in control of their own internet they don't need ICANN's or Verisign's' permission to do anything. Pooh cares very little what happens outside his wall.

  • one govt takes it , other govt take sit back this could be fun

    • Re:NO ITS MY domain (Score:4, Funny)

      by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @06:16AM (#63464204)
      ICANN Final Judgement

      We, the clean and open ICANN, hereby find it proven that the United States Government can legally claim the use of the .ru top level domain name, as it has been clearly shown to be merely the singular form of the domain already awarded for use by toys.rus

      Final Decision. No appeals are permitted.

      • Verisign doesn't handle .ru though. I'm not sure why ICANN would make that contract with the .ru authority, since there aren't web sites from many countries operating under .ru domains.

  • Obligatory post calling for (Score:3)

    by ClueHammer ( 6261830 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @06:25AM (#63464220)
    Decentralized DNS replacement, that is not under any Government, company or organizations control. Government control is scary. Eg China could pull 90% of the web offline, as they don't follow the party line thus should be banned (in their view)

    • There are ERC20 prototypes but the real ones are coming.

    • The whole purpose of centralization is to have unique identities and agree on protocols for information exchange. It's not much better than calling for decentralized control over assigning IPv4 addresses.

    • How can you have decentralized DNS? If there's a dispute over who owns the name, then who gets it?

      • Re: Obligatory post calling for (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PPH ( 736903 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @11:27AM (#63464960)

        How can you have decentralized DNS?

        It's not too difficult. You just have different root servers pointing to their own hierarchy of domain name data.

        I used to work for a company that had its own Intranet and internal naming hierarchy. Although what I proposed above isn't exactly the same thing, it could work in the global Internet as well. Point your system at a 'custom' DNS server and you can resolve names as that server defines.

        Hence Google (and others) push to get us onto DNS over HTTPS. Your browser and apps won't be able to bypass the 'approved' resolution that they provide. And Google will suddenly become the defacto registrar for all names. They are already stuffing their camel's nose under the tent by insisting that, in order to operate within their walled garden, one must obtain a certificate from them.

  • A few years ago they completely ignored public concern about selling gTLDs because there was too much money to be made by doing so. Now they're doing this because they don't care about public concern on it either.

    Don't forget though this is for any Government not just the one you most love to harp on.

  • Very dangerous (Score:3)

    by GigaplexNZ ( 1233886 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @06:56AM (#63464270)
    If this makes it to .com, Russia/China can just seize microsoft.com/windowsupdate.com and serve malware via Windows Update?
    • updates would still have signature verification.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tom ( 822 )

        You are assuming that neither Russia nor China are in possession of the relevant private keys.

        I hope you are right.

        I would not bet my house that you are.

  • This will eventually lead to a fork of DNS roots, as one could setup their own DNS infrastructure and forego the "public" DNS...

    • What is stopping anyone from doing this now?
      • It' already happened. OpenNIC is a freedom project, run by volunteers here in the west, and the BRICS countries have their own projects to bypass the western control of the internet: russia already has their own dns root for its own internal system separate from our internet, and China has its own dns as part of its IPv9 iot 2nd internet project that is supposed to rival the existing internet globally.

    • But how long before your packets aren't forwarded through Internet backbones without proper authentication?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      We've been saying that for at least 15, maybe 20 years.

      It hasn't happened so far. I wonder what it'll take to make it happen.

  • Pffft (Score:3)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @07:49AM (#63464356)

    Worry about governments seizing your assets and freedom without due process first. Things like the Patriot Act made a whole lot of bad things possible.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by fatwilbur ( 1098563 )
      What really worries me is a new generation is being taught to ridicule the concepts of freedom by associating it with political extremists and/or worthless arguments. See the derision through which people use the phrase “freeze peach”. Makes sense - freedom sucks when the people you hate get afforded it too.

  • This seems to be another example of a change in the direction against what was originally intended.

    Those individuals doing this should be highlighted and recognized for their intent to misdirect. And removed!

  • Any government can force ISPs to use their DNS systems right now, effectively allowing them to take over any domain within their territorial control now. The ISPs don't have a real choice if they want to stay in business.

  • This breaks the internet and the only people who benefit are those seeking controls over information flow. Who are the people sonsoring this agenda?

  • ICANN should be disbanded (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @09:41AM (#63464610)

    ICANN has been hopelessly corrupt for decades. The entire cesspool of an organization needs to be flushed down the drain.

    • The U.N. should take over the whole thing. It's the only organization setup for this kind of thing - it's not perfect but none are and it's the best thing we've got. It also means that it'll take a lot of global influence to manipulate it; more than it takes to mess with any other org.

      Otherwise if it has to be local... the EFF or ACLU seem like good owners...at least for a while.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djb ( 19374 )

        Give it to the UN, the organisation that repeatedly puts countries like Eritrea in charge of Human Rights? Why on Earth do you think they would do a good job at this?

        An argument could be made for the ITU, but that is now dominated by China and its proxies, where they repeatly try and make the Internet less secure.

  • So... (Score:3)

    by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @11:06AM (#63464898) Homepage
    ... On day 1 Russia would claim 1/3 of the domain names out there for hosting "misinformation" or criticism about their totally-not-a-war-just-special-military-operation in Ukraine? And Iran will take a other 1/3 because the content upsetting their morality police? And China will take the remainder because they can?
    • Yeah- I think that's a plausible outcome. This whole thing stinks of corruption and foreign influence, kinda like the International Olympic Committee, FICA, etc... Similar activities occurred in the 1990s when China used their seats on ASEAN to block U.S. efforts to address security and social issues in the region, while promoting security and social issues in the ASEAN Plus Three construct, which notably excluded the U.S. and Australia. This had the effect of allowing China to ignore those pesky human r

  • From his entry in the Internet Hall of Fame [internethalloffame.org]:

    For many, Jon's greatest contribution to the Internet was his role in creating the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This task - which he volunteered to take on and which he at first performed manually - provided the stability the Internet's numbering and protocol management systems needed for it to grow and scale. He was also involved with the Los Nettos network (a regional network for the greater Los Angeles area) and was one of Internet Society's founders, the first individual member; and he served as a Trustee from 1993-98.

    He died October 16, 1998 at the age of 55.

    [curly-apostrophes and em-dashes replaced with straight-apostrophes and en-dashes to accommodate Slashdot limitations]

  • Oh yeah - it's "wildcards". As in "I'm from the government, and I'm here to claim ownership of the domain or domains named 'https://*.*'. That is all.

  • There were plenty of us who warned this sort of garbage would happen back in 2016 when some were celebrating the severing of ICANN from US Govt control. As bad as the US Govt can be at times, and as imperfect as the US is, oversight of critical bits of the internet was best left in the control of the US where at least certain rights are enshrined in law and in a Constitution of a country that at least tries to maintain the Rule of Law.

    Every single time some activity is placed under wishy washy globalist do-

Slashdot Top Deals

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

Close