Top
Best
New

Posted by pavel_lishin 21 hours ago

.name Termination(neil.fraser.name)
1862 points | 454 commentspage 8
strenholme 17 hours ago|
The correct way to handle this mess is to simply keep things messy. BGP tables are a big mess, for example, because a lot of companies keep their IPs when going from ISP to ISP.

But, assuming that Verisign can’t keep third level domains (as a DNS implementer, I don’t think third level domains is a huge deal; see thread below):

* Third level names where only one person has the second level domain should be transferred to whoever owns that single third level name.

* Third level names where multiple people have the same second level domain should be put up for closed bidding: Only current owners of .name domains with a given second level domain name (e.g. last name) will be able to bid for the second-level domain. So, if one has john.smith.name and joe.smith.name, Joe Smith and John Smith will be in a bidding war for smith.name.

If the issue of .name not being in public suffix is a real issue, Verisign can handle that by disabling new third-level .name registrations, and provide Public Suffix with a list of those registrations (just send all the owners a privacy notice, making it clear that the existence of the name will be made public for security reasons). More reading: https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/issues/2306 (There seems to be issues with this list being too long to keep in the Public Suffix because there’s too much software out there which can’t handle it. That seems strange to me: Even here in 2026 where RAM costs far too much, Deadwood can store a list of 240,000 blacklisted entries in under 10 megs; there are about 22,000 three-level .name domains and I could store that list in a way that could be very quickly looked up in about a meg of memory)

Now, personally, I think Verisign can keep these messy third level names, and are doing things this way so that Neil Fraser has to compete with every single 2-bit cybersquatter out there for the rights to fraser.name.

As an aside, it’s trivial to have DNS servers handle multi-level domains without having to have a zone file for every level; e.g. https://this.is.a.long.name.maradns.org works, and there’s no zone file for name.maradns.org, long.name.maradns.org, a.long.name.maradns.org, and so on.

Also, since people have brought up the “org fuckery” without providing details: https://bluecatnetworks.com/press/the-org-domain-sale-explai...

You know dang well if .org was owned by an investment entity, they would had jacked up the prices as much as they could get away with.

xp84 16 hours ago|
The auction plan is gross. It is unfair to say "This thing you thought you were buying the right to exclusively control (subject to continued renewal payments)? We're gonna transfer it next week to whichever Fraser pays us the most. Happy bidding!" It wouldn't be any more fair to do that than to announce to all .com owners that there will now be an auction between them and everyone who ever typed that name into a search at the registrar.

What they should do, is nothing.

strenholme 16 hours ago||
I agree.

As a DNS implementer, the action plan is unnecessary. There are, what, only 22,000 or so .name domains. One can write code to do two lookups for firstname.lastname.name: If firstname.lastname.name is found, return the NS delegation. Otherwise, if lastname.name is found, return that NS delegation. Finally, if neither is found, return NXDOMAIN.

One argument is that this is hard to implement in the real world (it’s about one day, at most one week for a skilled DNS developer to pull off; probably half a day to be honest, and yes I have written code like this), so then yeah if that’s a real concern let’s have a closed auction. I’m opposed to the auction, based on my experience that this isn’t hard to implement.

If it’s an issue, just stop all new firstname.lastname.name registrations, and only allow lastname.name new registrations. Then we only need to deal with this corner case for about 22,000 domains, which we can keep in a special hash and would take about four megs to store.

xp84 10 hours ago||
Love the practical explanation of how straightforward it should be. Especially with the finite set. Hell, they could send an email to all 22,000 saying "We're sorry, we have to raise your renewal fees by $12 a year. We hate to do this, but we're having to do a lot of extra work to support this unique type of domain." they'd bring in $264,000 a year, surely that should be enough to pay a single skilled developer to manage this and also be available to help smooth over any future complications.
MagicMoonlight 17 hours ago||
[dead]
pmdr 19 hours ago||
> I had history with Verisign and did not trust them.

I don't know what that history is, but did it really make a tld used by only 22k people more appealing?

decimalenough 19 hours ago||
That's 22k people with third level domains like first.last.name. There are close to 100,000 second level last.name registrations, which are not going anywhere.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-2014-03-03-en

cormorant 19 hours ago||
According to Wikipedia, "Verisign was the outsourced operator for .name since the .name launch in 2002". That makes the reasoning yet more puzzling.
swiftcoder 19 hours ago||
They ran the backend services, but didn't set the policies (until they acquired the operator in 2008-2009)
bawolff 17 hours ago||
I feel like TLDs as a concept are more trouble than they are worth. We should just have .com and get rid of the rest (except special purpose tlds).
drnick1 19 hours ago||
> Second, my email address also disappears. Third, all the IoT devices that use services on this domain become bricks. Basically, I disappear from the Internet.

While changing email is inconvenient, I don't understand the point about IoT devices. IoT devices should not depend on the Internet at all for obvious privacy and security reasons. If you are using IoT devices with "cloud" accounts, then this is a blessing in disguise. Put that garbage in the trash and rebuild around HomeAssistant, Zigbee, RTSP, etc. I find it hard to believe that someone hosting their own website would fall for the cloud IoT scam.

jmuguy 19 hours ago||
Plenty of people and businesses have their own (DIY, etc) devices that need to use DNS. I mean it wouldn't really be the internet of things, if it didn't actually use the internet...

For instance, I own a .house domain that I use for a bunch of stuff that I've programmed. It would be a pain in the ass to go change that domain out. Now take that to next level and you're a business that's deployed a few thousand devices that need to call home.

I guess all this is to say - IoT doesn't just mean cheap botnet honeypot IP cameras. Take a look at https://www.balena.io/cloud for instance

drnick1 18 hours ago|||
"Internet" in this context usually means IP, and in any case it should be restricted to a LAN. If you actually own the device changing the domain or IP should be trivial, I don't think this is what the article refers to.
Sharlin 18 hours ago|||
It's dubious whether the Internet of Things was ever a good idea in any sense. Especially given how, famously, the "S" in "IoT" stands for security.
rahimnathwani 18 hours ago|||
He didn't say his IoT devices relied on 'cloud' accounts. He said there are IoT that use services on this domain.

Imagine he's set up some IoT devices at his parents' home, and those devices use services that he hosts somewhere on the internet. It would be silly to hard code the IP addresses in there, right (unless he operates his own ASN)? So he would use DNS to allow those devices to find his server(s). This would be the case whether the servers are at his home, at his office, or in a rack at a data centre.

monkeyfacebag 18 hours ago||
It sounds to me like you understand the point perfectly well, you just cared to make a different point.
jawns 19 hours ago|
Surely the author must have anticipated some heightened level of risk in pegging important parts of his personal and business life on a nonstandard TLD like this.

It's a pretty bizarre exception to the normal, intuitive ways that domains work.

I'll admit that it's a crappy situation and I would be frustrated in his place. But if I were in his place, I probably would have also thought it prudent to have a backup plan.

swiftcoder 19 hours ago||
> nonstandard TLD

What exactly is non-standard about an ICANN-approved TLD? Yes, the multi-level structure is a little odd, but given that ICANN approved it in the first place, one has a reasonable expectation that they would work as advertised.

jawns 19 hours ago|||
I have a .science domain and a .com domain.

Even though .science was launched in 2014 (more than a decade ago), I still consider it a non-standard TLD and still deal regularly with difficulties around its use. (For instance, you wouldn't believe how many online services reject email addresses than end in .science because they use regexes that exclude TLDs with 7 letters.)

Likewise, I've registered .lol and .fun domains but never would have assumed that just because they're available now, they will be available in perpetuity.

In that sense, .name as a third-level TLD is even more non-standard, because the standard way domain registration works is by choosing a single "second level" domain name, then adding subdomains.

angoragoats 18 hours ago|||
> Likewise, I've registered .lol and .fun domains but never would have assumed that just because they're available now, they will be available in perpetuity.

Why wouldn't you assume this?

> the standard way domain registration works is by choosing a single "second level" domain name, then adding subdomains

The entire ccTLD systems of the UK, China, Germany, France, Japan, and many others would beg to differ.

account42 35 minutes ago|||
> The entire ccTLD systems of the UK, China, Germany, France, Japan, and many others would beg to differ.

.de doesn't use third level registrations.

jawns 18 hours ago|||
I don't think those are comparable, because when you register a .co.uk domain, you are selecting one name that precedes .co.uk, similar to how you register one name that precedes .com.

Whereas with .name, you are choosing what appears to be a subdomain, followed by what appears to be a domain name. But under the hood, you do not own all subdomains for that domain name; you own only the combination of first_name.last_name.name.

angoragoats 18 hours ago||
I'm not sure I understand. How is registering first.last.name not also selecting one name ("first") that precedes last.name, similar to how you register one name that precedes .com?

(And yes, I am aware that you can also register last.name by itself, but only if there are no third-level domains using it, so for practical purposes it doesn't change my question above. Plus, when the OP originally purchased his domain, you could only buy third-level domains for .name.)

jawns 17 hours ago||
Present these two domain names to the average person:

1) benedict.cumberbatch.name

2) drstrange.co.uk

I expect the average person would assume that for the domain 1, .name is the TLD, cumberbatch.name is registered by a private entity, and benedict (and any other subdomains associated with cumberbatch.name) is a subdomain fully controlled by that private entity.

Whereas for domain 2, I think the average person will view ".co.uk" the same way they view ".com", even though technically it is both a ccTLD and a second-level domain.

swiftcoder 15 hours ago|||
Luckily the average person has no idea what a TLD or a subdomain are
account42 33 minutes ago||
They do if they are employed in a non-tiny company where they work at least partially on a computer and paid attention during security training.
angoragoats 13 hours ago|||
The average person doesn’t have the foggiest idea how TLDs, DNS, or domain registration work at all.

The only people who will make the assumptions you state are people who are tech-savvy enough to be familiar with those concepts, but not well-versed enough in them to understand the nuances we’re discussing.

And none of this does anything to advance the argument that .name is somehow nonstandard.

efreak 15 hours ago|||
My insurance will not send emails to my first@last.family domain. Neither will several other systems. A number of systems flat out refuse to acknowledge that such a tld exists. (Improper assumptions about valid email addresses)
zamadatix 15 hours ago||||
Non-standard as in "it's not up to my usual standards" not "is not part of a technical standard". I.e. it's a gTLD rather than a "standard" (in the previous sense) TLD.
avazhi 18 hours ago|||
> What exactly is non-standard about an ICANN-approved TLD?

Uh, 99% of people would assume a .name address is a scam. Hate to break it to you.

swiftcoder 15 hours ago||
I mean, we could say much the same of any other non-country TLD, and probably half the country TLDs. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t expect it to be administered responsibly
userbinator 8 hours ago|||
Anything other than .com, .net, .org, and well-known ccTLDs I see in search results subconsciously get skipped over as "probably SEO spam or other useless content". These new weird TLDs are like the .tk and .us of old.
angoragoats 19 hours ago||
.name is in no way a "nonstandard TLD." It has been in existence for a quarter of a century and was part of the first batch of new gTLDs approved after the dot-com boom had begun, in 2000.

For the first couple of years of .name's existence, it only allowed registration of third-level domains, and the ability to register second-level domains was added later (and only if no third-level domains existed for that second-level domain).

The author is in no way at fault here, and I don't think I would have assumed there was a heightened level of risk if I were him.