Discuss mailing list

["John Kozlowski \(ShofarDomain.com\)" <John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com>]

If I may rephrase your question the desire is to be able to allocate TLDs in such a way that there someone might otherwise simply grab up all they can (squatters).

 

The central authority (ICANN) approach allows that authority to select who gets what.  Clearly this is not the desire for numerous reasons like keeping the smaller players out and “power corrupts…”.

 

The crypto method you discuss has merit, but I wonder if there is too much of a need for a smaller player to still to get “lucky” as opposed to the larger player who has the resources still in essence buy TLDs at will.

 

Since all of this works only by how the resolver software does its work, we are looking at another approach with ShofarDomain.  Once we reach our “lockdown” date where all TLDs in our system are certificate based, to add a new TLD would require a certain number of other TLDs to invite them in.  Each TLD would be allocated a fixed number of votes per period, so the growth is limited by those numbers.  A weakness here is you have to “know” someone to get a vote.  However, it may also be like twitter where there are numerous who simply offer to be followers, and the same may hold true for TLDs.  This is obviously being explored and may morph greatly.

 

Both refining the crypto method or the invitation method are worthy of thought.  The rootless concept needs to be a focus, otherwise we will end up with ICANN and the little kiddies that done have any presence.

 

John Kozlowski

http://ShofarDomain.com Email: John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com Phone: +1 (423) 716-6432 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShofarDomain Twitter: https://twitter.com/ShofarDomain YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/ShofarDomain

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org [mailto:discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org] On Behalf Of Alex M (Coyo)
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:10 AM
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: [opennic-discuss] Proposal for End-to-End Encrypted Root-Less DNS

 

Okay so, correct me if I'm wrong, but

isn't it possible to have an alternative blockchain for NameCoin that has a much higher difficulty, let's say only one mined genesis block per three months, and then use that as the TLDs, eliminating the need for a centralized root.

 

The significantly high difficulty makes it financially infeasible to squat on TLDs, yet is enough to keep TLD abuses in check, since there is enough to encourage competition.

 

For second-level and third level, you'd have normal nameservers like PowerDNS and BIND9, though I'd strongly suggest implementing DNSSEC + DANE + DNSCurve and a few more enhancements for privacy and security as a general convention from the outset.

 

What do you think?

 

 

--------

You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.

You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org