Survey and ML [soliciting feedback from the general public] for stewardship transition: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IANA_stewardship http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition -Travis On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Cathal Garvey wrote:

...

Can we further reduce ambiguity by reducing the set to those TLDs recognized by ICANN?

Isn't it more useful to reduce the set to TLDs that the "average user" can connect to? That's why I shared the rumours about .onion in Firefox: who cares what ICANN thinks, if a large enough userbase can access it OOTB without configuration?

By contrast, .onion *today*, along with .i2p and .bit, are all configuration-heavy, meaning virtually nobody will actually access or use them unless they're already completely dedicated customers. The Silk Road managed to pull people in because it was essentially the only place to buy drugs "safely" online (along with plenty of other reprehensible things), but that's a completely exceptional case.

I'm thinking of benign web services that enrich the world in some way, but suffer censorship or legal assault because they disturb the status-quo. The next start-up that MPAA want to crush, or the next whistleblowing site, or the next transborder social network. Those people will need TLDs they can rely on. If .onion goes surprisingly mainstream in the near future, that'd be very powerful.

Of course, .onion will remain slow as sin, but for those websites they can use .onion with 304 redirects to non-onion TLDs for each visitor; as their clearnet TLDs get shut down they can just register new ones and 304 redirect to them on the fly for each new visitor; whack-a-mole on a grand scale, a total losing battle for the censors. The critical bit is that there's one canonical URL for new visitors that will always lead to service.

On 06/10/14 21:00, Travis Biehn wrote:

...

Rysiek, Can we further reduce ambiguity by reducing the set to those TLDs recognized by ICANN?

I don't think you can 'rely' on any of them, to coderman's point.

Your best bet is to enumerate the list of TLD delegated authoritative servers, then recursively send legal threats to each.

The one who demonstrates the most impressive apathy may be your winner :)

Of course, you may want to follow the concept of pitting two noncooperative countries against each other. If the threat to your name isnt specifically tied to a subset of all jurisdictions.. You might have a problem.

You might, then, establish a protocol. The hash of the website CNN.com's contents, for instance, may serve as a backup domain.

Realistically its really down to finding a cool registrar & TLD pair. TBP may be your best example here.

As a final note: if you're worried about these kinds of problems you probably shouldn't be using clearnet.

Travis On Oct 5, 2014 6:50 PM, "coderman" wrote:

...

On 10/5/14, rysiek wrote:

...

... which TLD should I choose for a "clearternet" version of the website?

for present day, "clearnet" version, winner is .bit / namecoin.

-- Twitter: @onetruecathal, @formabiolabs Phone: +353876363185 Blog: http://indiebiotech.com miniLock.io: JjmYYngs7akLZUjkvFkuYdsZ3PyPHSZRBKNm6qTYKZfAM

-- Twitter https://twitter.com/tbiehn | LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn | GitHub http://github.com/tbiehn | TravisBiehn.com http://www.travisbiehn.com | Google Plus https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn