Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] [ICANN] New gTLDS, first conflict

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] [ICANN] New gTLDS, first conflict

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Coyo <coyo AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [ICANN] New gTLDS, first conflict
  • Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:43:24 -0600

Hash: SHA1

O ICANN, thy glory forever be praised, thy decisions forever be
honored, your word forever be glorified.

There is a reason many call the public Internet ICANNnet, because
ICANN has illegitimate control over the global Internet, its numbers
and names.

Alternatives to the public Internet exist, some use BGP and MPLS, some
do not. Some alternatives use experimental routing and switching
methods, some use different methods of peering between autonomous
systems, some do not.

However, the public Internet, or ICANNnet, is the most popular, and
thus it is expected that servers be reachable with it. As you might
have guessed, I am not a huge fan of the centralized and illegitimate
nature of the public Internet and its ICANN and IANA.

There are more comments below.

On 3/5/2014 1:15 PM, Alejandro Bonet wrote:
> [ICANN] is a corporation (not an "authority"), and that matters for
> namespaces (not only numbers), and I think Jon Postel is screaming
> and crying from his tomb...
> ICANN, in my humble opinion, does not have any kind of legal
> authority: It is only a "stock market", and all the stock markets
> belongs to the same savage capitalist regime.

Speaking as an Anarcho-Capitalist, the State Capitalist Regime is not
true Capitalism. True Capitalism is based on mutual agreement and
enlightened selfishness. This regime is not mutual benefit, it is only
gangsters in business suits pretending to be Capitalists.

> "First come first own" was the rule since 25 years.
> But there is no social agreement capitalism could not transgress
> for profit. Another thing is what is the correct way to fight with
> them.
> I think the answer is: Open Technology.

The public ICANN-net is not open technology. The open standards are a
lie. There is no openness, or small ISPs would dominate the Internet,
not a handful of lazy, greedy corporations with senators bought and
paid for. The law is the enemy of a free and open Internet.

Proof of this is whether or not ISP-level BGP4+ routing can be done by
Linux-based routers such as Vyatta or OpenBSD-based routers such as
pfSense. Core routers can only be specialized and
ridiculously-expensive hardware devices, and this is by design.

Core routing in the "public" Internet is deliberately designed so only
ridiculously expensive specialized core routers are necessary, and
thus only huge multinational ISPs could possibly afford them.

This is deliberate. It is a deliberate strategy to keep the "public"
Internet closed and controlled by huge multinational corporations,
excluding small ISPs and individuals from participating as a top-level

It is also very hard for new or small ISPs to get AS numbers, which
are necessary to participate in top-level BGP routing. Many huge ISPs
and their engineers complain about how huge the BGP routing table is
getting, but none of them really want to fix it, because that would
endanger their nice cushy jobs. The real solution is to throw BGP in
the trash, but that will never happen in the so-called public Internet.

Internet engineers working for large international corporations really
like the huge routing table, despite claims to the contrary, because
it excludes competition and openness. If you want proof of this,
listen to the ridiculous excuses for not throwing away BGP, SONET and
MPLS in favor of more open and accessible protocols.

Regarding the slowness of software-based routers and switches, open
and commodity hardware line cards that are affordable for the common
person are required for faster routing and switching, but huge
corporations and their pet engineers will do everything possible to
fight this.

Affordable commodity line cards are the enemy of the closed Internet.
If you think this is impossible, look at the Thunderbolt 2 interface
and imagine an open alternative to Thunderbolt 2. It is entirely
possible, feasible, and affordable. Thunderbolt 2 motherboards are
very affordable, as low as 180 United States dollars.

> 2014-03-05 18:35 GMT+01:00, Wil <wil AT>:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm new here ; so please, don't take offense on anything I might
>> say that's sounds completely idiot..
>> "...this TLD does belong to Tim and he has submitted relative
>> documentations to ICANN including his .ing trademark..."

I had an idea awhile ago regarding TLD conflicts. I call it "TLD

Basically, you have a set of 2nd level domains such as and, then "mount" OpenNIC TLDs as such. It is a similar idea to, except instead of a web gateway, it acts as a DNS recursor
that makes OpenNIC TLDs reachable through a "mounted" 2nd level domain.

>> Well, i would like to be sure to understand ; could you tell what
>> kind of documents has been submitted exactly please ?
>> I don't know how many people use OpenNIC servers by now.. But if
>> the plan is to serve any people, including my grandma, maybe,
>> with ICANN's total stupid behavior, we should try to make people
>> understand that we (all people using internet) should not leave
>> an "important part" of the control of Internet in corporation's
>> hands.
>> Maybe, yes, we could ask the E.F.F an hand on this.

I can agree with this. EFF involvement in TLD squatting may be
helpful. In the meantime, advancing NameCoin technology may be helpful.

I've proposed this before, But using an alternative chain NameCoin for
TLDs with a high difficulty and slow mining rate can help decentralize
DNS TLD authority, then use regular nameservers for 2nd and 3rd level
domains from there.

By making the NameCoin-based alternative blockchain very
computationally expensive, it makes domain squatting more trouble than
it's worth. It would take on average 6 months to mine a single TLD,
and even with a large botnet, the NameCoin-based altcoin adjusts
itself based on the total hashing power of the network to keep the
TLDs expensive.

I'd suggest the name TLDCoin, and suggest it use SCrypt to make ASIC
mining difficult, and perhaps a proof-of-stake system and other
enhancements to make TLDCoin more competitive.

The idea behind TLDCoin is that it would be used mostly by DNS server
admins to decide TLD ownership in a decentralized fashion, not a
replacement of DNS servers themselves. TLDCoin is a complement, not a

>> The question might be stupid, but does OpenNic has a blog or any
>> site with info news somewhere ? I guess that some people on the
>> list do have a blog or something similar.. Is this a good idea to
>> start to talk about this ? Don't worry, I'm not an utopist
>> either, but maybe the more people hear about this, the more they
>> might get interest in this kind of problem...
>> Wil.
>>> Le 5 mars 2014 à 16:40, Peter Green <peter AT> a
>>> écrit :
>>> .ing has signed the contract[0] with ICANN.
>> Just to clarify, do you not mean ' Charleston Road Registry Inc
>> has signed A contract with I.C.A.N.N?
>>> we now have our first conflicting domain within this money grab
>>> ICANN has started.
>> This is pants... :-/
>>> our choices are; - keep .ing in the OpenNIC root and conflict
>>> with ICANN
>> Yes. (I will vote come the time).
>> As Dan Q, said, can we get help from the E.F.F?
>> Peter -- Wanged from my Kaiser by a mischievous pixie!
>> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may
>> unsubscribe by emailing
>> discuss-unsubscribe AT
>> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may
>> unsubscribe by emailing
>> discuss-unsubscribe AT
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page