Item — HN Reader

I guess by default all .com's have US jurisdiction? Because even if it's a default judgment, and the registrar is based out of the US, which seems to the case here, any court order from the US is able to take a domain down.

Found the case, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/07...

The Ninth Circuit held that the U.S. court had jurisdiction to proceed because VeriSign—the registry for all .com domains—was located in the United States.

1 comments

Every TLD that is not a ccTLD is effectively a US ccTLD. This has always been the case, and perhaps the US has tricked us into becoming complacent. If the world was fair they would all be underneath .us.

I want to see other countries start rejecting the ICANN root and forcing all the US domains under .us, but it will never happen. It would break their vhosts for one thing. Doing it at the browser level could avoid that.

I vaguely recall some crypto project that was 'blockchain for domain names'. I scoffed at it at the time, but maybe there is a real need for something like that after all. (Or some other system for domain names you truly own and can't be rugpulled.)

Probably Namecoin, but there are several now. Probably ENS (Ethereum name service) is the most notable.

But keep in mind Zooko's triangle - you can't have all three of secure, human-readable, and decentralised.

In Zooko terms, blockchains are secure, human-readable, centralised registries - there is only one, and you have to stay connected to it. Onion domains (which are public key hashes) are secure, unreadable, and decentralised. Petnames (as used in I2P) are insecure, readable, and decentralised.