back
30 comments
So instead the US is the only country that "owns" domain names, since ICANN is an American company? If the domains aren't property then how can they be seized? Is a distinction made between domain names and ccTLDs?

edit: Downvotes? Really? For asking a question that seems perfectly on-topic.

> So instead the US is the only country that "owns" domain names, since ICANN is an American company?

If you read the article instead of responding to the title, you would recognize that ICANN is saying no one "owns" ccTLDs, because they aren't property at all.

I have, and yes, they say that, but since they are an American company and thus can be compelled to do pretty much anything by the American goverment (through secret courts even, which we've been hearing more and more about) it seems reasonable to say that America owns them, and their bookkeeping.
Their argument here is for why they cannot be compelled to do certain things by American courts.
ICANN has historically acted remarkably independent from the rest of the US Government. And legally: Icann and the US Department of Commerce announced that they had signed a new agreement that states the internet body is "independent and not controlled by any one entity". It also commits Icann to remaining a private, not-for-profit organisation. http://www.zdnet.com/icann-gains-independence-from-the-us-30...
The TLDs are not property, they are assigned by virtue of a physical space, like a postal code or an address.

Domains are property, are bought by virtue of wanting a specific name, and can be sold.

So what about, for example, .co.uk? The ccTLD is .uk, but almost everyone uses the .co.uk subdomain, which itself is a regular domain.
The UK registrar decides how subdomains of .uk are allocated. They might well declare that .co.uk is an administrative division like .uk, but mycompany.co.uk is property that can be bought and sold. I don't see any particular issue with this, and it would match how they're used in practice (modulo some weirdness like police.uk).
ICANN is not "American" necessarily, other than it's incorporated in America. Transition of ICANN from the US government to a fully private organization happened years ago.
They are American much in the same way that Google and Facebook are American, are they not?
Except that they're explicitly international - they have boards with international representation, they move their meetings around to different countries to try to be equal, and in general don't specifically advance a US-specific agenda.

Years ago, ICANN was funded/an arm of the US Department of Commerce, and then it could justifiably be accused of having an American perspective. The CCTLD operators got annoyed that the US was running things, and eventually the US DoC spun off ICANN into its own independent entity, and ICANN self-funded through what are basically taxes on registrations.

ICANN documents on the case: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-...
Seriously, fuck the people that want to seize 3 countries worth of ccTLDs.

That isn't reasonable or rational behavior. You can't seize top level domains. You shouldn't be allowed to, regardless of the reasons. You break the human-readable internet and DNS if this is allowed.

Some countries will go along with such a seizure, some won't, and the internet will fragment.

I entirely agree with you in principle, but can't bring myself to be angry about it anymore. For the last few years I've been pessimistic about the long term viability of the unary root zone anyway.

At one point the users of the internet were collaborative enough to decide "lets just let Jon Postel run this shit." Almost half the world is online now, and depending on the Internet more and more. That kind of collaboration still works (in a more formal manner) for big things if they fly under the user's radar (like the switch to IPv6). Outside of a few flamewars, things gets done (slowly, it's a lot of work, but done nonetheless). How much of the planet relies on and has daily visible interaction with the root zone? A forth? At least?

There is already monkeying around in resolvers to add, remove or change records but those are generally isolated and/or purpose specific. Can ICANN, governments, and big ISPs all coordinate and keep their personal interests in check well enough to persevere the the root zone's position as the one and only source of authority?

Well, ccTLDs anyway. Verisign is authoritative for .com and .net, and generates the root zone file. Control of that could (but probably won't) be transferred for a large amount of money.
They are assigned names and numbers. You have as much ownership over a domain as you do over the name of the street your home is on. Given the importance of assigned names and numbers to business, similar to trademarks, you have a certain amount of administrative control and protection against arbitrary reassignment.

Think about this: (800) 588-2300. Some of you reading this will automatically and involuntarily hear the end of the jingle: "Empiiiire." That number is not owned. It has just been continuously in use by the same company for decades.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That address is not owned. It's just how the USPS identifies the White House mailbox.

Changing assignments for a TLD makes about as much sense as renaming the postal code for California from CA to QM, or assigning the 777 area code to any place in the US other than the Las Vegas Strip. That code isn't even in use yet.

It's not about ownership, its about making sense and being intuitive for people trying to find the information they need. Purposefully ruining the addressing system for information is as much a dick move as heading to the public library and demolishing their card catalog terminals with a fireman's axe just because you don't want people to be able to check out any copies of a certain book.

From a quick read-through of the documents I can find on this, it seems most likely that the ownership issue won't be reached because it looks like much clearer jurisdictional and procedural issues that ICANN also raises are likely to be dispositive as to the validity of the writs of attachment at issue.
I think it is good move. Otherwise many countries would see DNS as something worth controlling (and forking).
I concur. The official response should have been, "Nope".
Only USA should have the power to seize domains. ICE FTW!

Merika! Fuck Yeah!

Even at ICE's worst they only grab a handful of domains at a time.

Trying to grab an entire TLD at once is insanity.

> Otherwise many countries would see DNS as something worth controlling

It's funny. I think the irony was lost in qwerta's comment.

Has ICE ever seized a TLD?

Could a registrar that operates outside the US not be compelled by that nations laws w/r/t the domains under it's control? Because as far as I'm aware, that's how ICE does in the US.

Not saying I like it, but I don't know that your characterization is accurate.

ICE don't compel the registrar, they compel the registry normally; in the case of .com and .net that is Verisign.
Oops, that's what I meant. I tend to mix those up.
IF they want to seize domains in the country that is one thing. They want to seize, basically, the right to identify yourself as that country/origin online, as if to erase it from existence. Doesn't anyone see the de-humanizing aspect of this?
What about a phone prefix, like +963 for Syria? Can it be "seized"? Bizarre.
Yes. They are assigned and controlled by the ITU much like ccTLDs are assigned and controlled by ICANN. The same is true for radio and television prefixes.
Looks like countries need to look into decentralized DNS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
How to realy realy piss off the ITU and the UN and give it ammunition to take over ICANT's job