Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] FreedomNIC Request For Peering

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] FreedomNIC Request For Peering

Chronological Thread  
  • From: FreedomNIC Team <freedomnicteam AT>
  • To: "discuss AT" <discuss AT>
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] FreedomNIC Request For Peering
  • Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:00:38 +0000

Hello Phillip,

We sent this early before full setup because when we spoke to who was
considered an OpenNIC staff member they said it would be good to get
constructive criticism to better ourselves before we actually request that we
peer. The request for peering may not be sent as soon as possible, we may
wait on it and we most likely will.

In regards to how this would benefit OpenNIC that's a good question. We feel
that OpenNIC would benefit from this because it would expand on the already
massive network that OpenNIC is, not to mention it wouldn't really take
anything on their part to peer. The difference between peering and actually
running say a T2 server is that peering allows users to resolve TLD's or
domains on another namespace while an actual T2 server takes up most of
FreedomNIC's infrastructure and can put more load and stress on the server.
I'd consider the opportunity, should we pursue it because its still in
discussion internally, to be a free offer to expand.

When we or I should I say mentioned foundation I meant in a network sort of
way. Should something like this actually happen we would name it something
like the International Body for Alternative DNS or IBAD but IBADNS also
works. It sounds similar to IANA and in layman's terms it is but the
difference would be that we could be an entire network of alternative DNS's,
be more democratic should we all want that and it might even lead to the
easier finding of less known alternative DNS's.

At this time, users of FreedomNIC have the option of establishing special and
closed TLD's. Special TLD's have guidelines that have to be met to register a
domain while closed TLD's aren't allowed to be registered by the public.

At this time, we check TLD's as they come in for wanted establishment. Should
a TLD come in that's in another namespace at this time we will deny it. Now
as for the .arpa situation, we may consider removing the TLD especially due
to certain circumstances regarding our own network. Should the .arpa TLD be
removed we would also remove the exceptions clause in our TLD Establishment

Finally your question on availability, in regards to that we cannot with 100%
certainty guarantee that we can keep afloat. I will say however that we do,
for the most part get confirmed payments each month that cover our server
bill so as long as that keeps coming in we should be able to stay here for
the long run.

Thank you so much for your questions and suggestions. If you have anymore
please let me know.


The FreedomNIC Team

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 11, 2020 5:16 AM, Philipp Schafft
<lion AT> wrote:

> Good morning,
> speaking for FurNIC here, not for OpenNIC.
> On Wed, 2020-11-11 at 02:16 +0000, FreedomNIC Team wrote:
> > We're the team behind FreedomNIC. FreedomNIC was founded a couple of
> > weeks ago, [...]
> I would like to second this question:
> > Why did you send this so early? Before you were fully setup?
> -- Charles Wyble charles AT
> > [...] We would like to peer with OpenNIC as it would grow FreedomNIC
> > at an even faster rate, make discovery of FreedomNIC easy and it would
> > grow the alternative DNS network as a whole,
> Maybe share your opinions with us how OpenNIC would benefit from it; it
> should be mutual, shouldn't it? (Please keep in mind that I'm not
> speaking for OpenNIC here, this one is more my personal opinion).
> > enough to maybe one day start a foundation.
> Not sure what you mean by 'a foundation', do you mean1 founding a
> corporate body?
> > Let's answer some questions you all may have.
> > What TLD's are available?
> > At this time all of the TLD's available are as follows: .arpa, .fnic
> > (closed, not open to the
> > public), .web, .archive, .ger, .ginga, .zmrd, .xeon, .xd, .test, .px,
> > .retro, .hovna and finally .wingy (with which is a closed TLD and is not
> > open to the public)
> What do you mean by 'closed' and 'not open to the public'?
> > Why is .arpa a TLD?
> > We have policies when it comes to establishing TLD's to disallow any
> > TLD that is on ICANN's network but we do have and make exemptions for
> > certain TLD's including .arpa. .arpa was exempted from said policies
> > because its not used much in the first place and the only limitations
> > we really as FreedomNIC put on it were that any domain that existed in
> > the .arpa namespace on ICANN would not be allowed to be registered in
> > FreedomNIC's namespace.
> How do you ensure you do not conflict with future registrations on the
> namespace? I mean, isn't the hierarchical concept of DNS not exactly
> this? Single owner subspaces to avoid conflicts? See also below.
> I would really recommend you to review this decision.
> > What's your policy for establishing TLD's?
> > Our policy [...]
> > Who runs FreedomNIC?
> > There are 3 heads [...]
> > What would you do to combat domain squatting?
> > At this time, an expiration system for domains and TLD's is not in
> > place but we do have plans to establish one.
> > Do you have a website?
> > Yes we do! [...] [...; not exactly 'Yes' as
> > only a default page at time of writing]
> > OpenNIC exists, why did you create this?
> > [...] Our main premise is on the Freedom of Expression which we define
> > as including the right to launch a TLD with no money, no servers, no
> > nothing. We handle it all.
> See below.
> > Do you have a publicly available TLD list for OpenNIC or other users
> > who might need it?
> > We do not at this time but it will be available soon at tlds.fnic.
> > Do you have intentions to ban or disallow the creation of TLD's that
> > already exist in other namespaces like OpenNIC's?
> > Yes we do! Should we peer up with OpenNIC and other alternative DNS
> > servers we will indeed put policies in place to prevent that kind of
> > situation from happening. At this time though, seeing as we aren't
> > peering there is no danger of conflicts. We will, for the time being
> > however disallow the creation of TLD's that exist in other namespaces.
> Same question as above, however here at the point of the root zone
> unavoidable, sadly:
> How do you plan with conflicts? That is one of your peers or peer's
> peers registering a new TLD that is already in use by you.
> In fact with the arpa TLD such a conflict is already in place.
> If you value the freedom to register a new TLD so much, you also must
> accept that your peers will register TLDs without pre-registration
> coordination with you. At best such a pre-registration coordination
> would be to inform you, however never asking for permission.
> I strongly recommend both you and OpenNIC to have a protocol for such a
> case ready before peering, keeping in mind that such a conflict already
> exists.
> > Do you have a rate limiting system to block DDoS attacks?
> > We do not at this time but it has been suggested to us in the
> > alternative DNS community and we do plan on implementing one soon.
> > How do domain registrations work?
> > While the website's in development, [...]
> Here is another question from me:
> How is it ensured to be a long term project with long term availability
> considering man power as well as funding.
> Please do not get me wrong here, I truly believe that a few people can
> run something big for a long time. However based on the history of
> OpenNIC we know that people like to start new TLDs, but before the year
> ended they are gone for one or another reason. Leaving the TLD defunct,
> to be cleaned up by others.
> To me "with no money, no servers, no nothing" smells like "with no
> effort" which again smells like "with no responsibility". However
> responsibility is needed when running (read: including non-technical
> aspects such as management) infrastructure for others.
> > Thank you all for reading,
> Thank you for writing.
> Looking forward to our reply.
> With best regards,
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Philipp Schafft,
> erster Vorsitzender des Fellig e.V.
> chairman of Fellig e.V.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page