
SaveDotOrg Protest at ICANN in Los Angeles this Friday Jan 24 - dredmorbius
https://savedotorg.org/index.php/savedotorg-protest-at-icann/
======
whoopdedo
Has anyone considered a hostile fork of .org? Set up an alternative root that
initially mirrors PIR. Cache existing domains until their registration
expires. Encourage domain owners to register with the fork using enticing
terms. Like offering to rebate the cost of registering with PIR to be in both
databases. Or offer much longer terms. Solicit ISPs to point their DNS to your
root. Set a cut-off date that after which you'll stop resolving new domains
registered with PIR. Give the internet the ability to vote with their feet and
wallets who gets to be in charge of the root.

~~~
michaelt
_> Has anyone considered a hostile fork of .org?_

There have been various attempts at alternative DNS root [1] by people unhappy
with ICANN.

In the past, these attempts haven't been able to convince ISPs to point their
users to the forked service - even if they mirror every existing domain free
of charge.

And you don't just have to convince domain registrants and end users; you need
to bring mailserver administrators and certificate authorities along too.

I'm not saying it's impossible - Google could force things unilaterally with a
change to Chrome, for example - but history shows users are slow to vote with
their feet.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root)

------
donkeyd
Not just .org moving into private hands is concerning, but the premise that a
TLD, which is so widely used, can apparently move into the hands of a for
profit is much more concerning to me. What if Verisign decided to sell .com to
the highest bidder? Verisign's contract expires in 2024 so they might be able
to get rid of price caps too. That would make .com hella valuable.

~~~
rjzzleep
I would like to know the answer to this as well. Is there any detailed data on
the topic?

I know ACTA was shot down but I'm not sure the petition had anything to do
with it.

From the few articles I read I would think that's less the petition itself and
more what the organizers did with the petition data after the petition.

I found a few articles:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2017/02/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2017/02/03/yes-signing-those-petitions-makes-a-difference-even-if-
they-dont-change-trumps-mind/)

[https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2017/01/do-
online-...](https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2017/01/do-online-
petitions-actually-work-numbers-reveal-truth)

[https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/12/28/we-the-
peopl...](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/12/28/we-the-people-five-
years-of-online-petitions/)

------
tsukurimashou
Are petitions any useful? Did they ever have any significant impact? I
understand it can help to put some visibility on a problem that is not widely
known, but in my mind I still see these websites and Facebook groups of people
signing petitions left and right with nothing concrete behind them.

EDIT: I didn't notice at first there was a rally, so I guess this is more than
just a petition, but still I'm interested in other people opinion about
petitions

~~~
squarefoot
"Are petitions any useful? Did they ever have any significant impact?"

They can be effective, depending on the balance between interests and the risk
of PR backlash when the involved parties ignore them. Any decision is usually
taken after careful planning of worst case scenarios like millions of people
refusing to buy X product/brand for example or marching with signs against
that product/brand, including of course viral campaigns or the big media
covering the issue which is the worst they can think of. It's all about the
money: if a petition whether directly or not results in a lot less money for
the subject the petition was created against, then it has been effective.

In this case however I think the message should be a lot more clear. By
reading the headlines it seems someone is attempting to buy some "dot.com"
site or a fictional "(space).com" domain, which sends a completely wrong
message. This is likely the case where a more effective tabloid-like headline
would work better.

~~~
tsukurimashou
Thanks for your detailed opinion on the subject, I agree with what you're
saying, I'm currently watching the documentary "Marking a Murderer" which is
on Netflix and I have to say, you can really see the shift of the story when
internet began to become more and more available and popular.

I might have underestimated petitions, but seeing so many of them when
internet was getting kind of popular probably gave me the wrong idea, things
changes so quickly these days!

------
ajnin
DNS is really a major technical and organizational weakness of the Internet.
It is centralized, it is insecure, it lacks privacy. And now, apparently, it
can be exploited for the profit or corrupt individuals. I think it is time to
replace it by something else. It is by pure convention that we allow ICANN to
administer it, we could change that tomorrow.

~~~
anon463637
These are vague and strawman criticisms that deny reality and that DNS can't
solve everything itself.

Who owns which domain will always be centralized if only one group or
individual can own a particular name. Having multiple domain name systems
creates chaos.

Privacy can be solved on the client-side with VPNs or DNS resolution encrypted
proxies (dnscrypt) and private registration (by the owner).

Security (integrity and non-repudiation) already exists in the form of DNSSEC
and DANE. It's a Catch-22 to say it's not when it clearly exists. It's
imperfect but it does exist.

ICANN was supposed to/should've been a steward in the interests of all people,
not just corporations.

You can't replace it with something else and expect a different result. All
you're doing is moving problems around without addressing them. Emperor's new
clothes won't fix that, sorry.

~~~
CameronNemo
Fwiw DNSSEC was designed before modern crypto fundamentals were understood. It
is a lackluster mechanism, and yet ICANN keeps trying to get people to use it.

------
intsunny
Are there ways for those of us not near Los Angeles to also join in on the
protesting?

------
parski
Why is the .org TLD worth saving and what exactly does that mean? How
important is this?

~~~
ZiiS
Becauase lots of worthy organisations have used it for over 20 years. Forcing
them all to over pay or relocate is unfair.

~~~
Spivak
I mean isn't that essentially the deal you get when you're renting any
property? Just because I've lived in my apartment for 20 years doesn't stop
them from raising the rents when my lease renews once the area starts blowing
up.

Look, I'm all for saving .org, I hope them the best, but it's not the end of
the world for most websites where people are funneled there from search.
There's probably a lot of internal IT stuff that would be annoying to migrate
but that's nothing a split-horizon DNS can't put off.

~~~
mindslight
This is more like you buying your house outright. Then after 20 years the
registry of deeds decides to start demanding a stiff yearly maintenance fee,
without which they'll remove your deed from their books and allow new
registrants to substitute their own in its place.

~~~
Spivak
That's silly. This is more like a map charging you to list your address. You
make it sound like not owning wikipedia.org suddenly means they lose all their
servers.

~~~
mindslight
This is literally _losing your address_.

In my example you still own the house itself, just like a website still owns
the servers. But you've lost the foundation it relies upon.

They're called _registries_ for a reason.

------
mixmastamyk
Marina del Rey, eh? I was expecting downtown. Not easy to get to, a shame.

~~~
caycep
yeah...the political heart of protesting would be on the steps of City Hall
downtown. They should be used to it by now, logistically speaking, given
Occupy and the Women's March....

------
woofie11
It's like chickens rallying a chicken farmer...

