Opennic domain names

I would kindly ask that the 1.1.1.1 resolver would also work for opennic. Could this be done?

I want to resolve for example, the domain example.o, samip.o, and etch with that.

Opennic sounds bad in terms of changing operations of an existing resolver - suddenly everyone can resolve more TLDs. Suddenly searches for files (such as object.o and openssl.lib, very widely-used file formats) go to domain names you may not have wanted to visit.

Opennic can be used if it’s in use from the beginning and it’s clearly communicated to users who sign up for the service. 1.1.1.1 is already in use by so many devices and services that such a sudden shift would cause a lot of issues. Even with 6 months warning, so many people set DNS to Cloudflare and forget it so they likely wouldn’t get the memo.

Also, the choice to support DNS roots like .oz, .ku, .te, .ti, and .uu is not standards-compliant. Say suddenly a new nation comes into the world and ISO assigns them one of these abbreviations, or one of these “emerging countries” they have TLDs for gets assigned a different cctld, what does opennic do? They made the choice to pre-register a bunch of domains under these reserved 2-letter country codes, so now they either have to

A. stop being able to say “we directly support all ICANN-assigned tlds” and keep resolving the existing domains

or

B. say to the existing domain owners of [their artificial] tld “sorry to be you” as their domain names they thought they owned now become registered to other entities

Just a few more concerns I have with Opennic:

  • Blockchain? Why? Why is anything in terms of DNS related to the blockchain??? (bottom of the homepage)
  • The “free” TLD also has many applicants at ICANN, this is the same problem as above with pre-existing opennic domain names
3 Likes

First of all, going to the URL example.o is not the same as searching for the file example.o, which doesn’t query DNS at all. To address concerns regarding ICANN resolution, ICANN continues to abuse monopoly powers in order to cause the very naming conflicts they say they are trying to prevent. The solution is for the ICANN root servers to interoperate with alternative roots such as OpenNic, thereby resolving conflicts normally and naturally. But they have been shown to spite alternative roots by stealing their TLD’s for themselves so that any domain owners on an alternative root are left out in the cold when the TLD is stolen in this way. The reason ICANN abuses its monopoly powers in this way is not at all to resolve naming conflicts, nor do they set standards, as the DNS is itself a standard that allows for any number of alternative roots as long as they comply with the DNS standard. The reason ICANN abuses its self-granted monopoly powers is so that they can make a profit. OpenNic has shown us that it is indeed possible to operate a TLD at little to no cost. However, ICANN, in its continued abuse of power, charges would-be TLD operators as much as a quarter of a million dollars a year and involves them in a huge pile of unnecessary paperwork just to get started. ICANN itself is then no longer standards compliant, but becomes a monopoly that is completely willing and able to knowingly and maliciously choke out any possible market competition that they see as a threat to their profit margin. I for one would strongly encourage one of the best DNS providers on the planet currently to resolve alternative roots in the spirit of interoperability and yes, DNS standards compliance. I would however rather see ICANN itself make a good faith effort to interoperate with alternative DNS roots by simply copying the alternate zones and to reject TLD applications that are already on these zones, which would resolve any and all present and future naming conflicts once and for all.

No offence, Kyle, but we really dont need an ICANN rant. Whether all the actions of ICANN are just or not is certainly something that can be up for debate, but the forum here is not the right place.

The Cloudflare DNS service serves publicly recognised TLDs and not private ones. You are certainly free to start a petition for Cloudflare to change that policy. I, personally, wouldnt sign/support it for the very reasons mentioned by @Judge three months ago, but that doesnt mean others wouldnt, however even such a petition wouldnt mean Cloudflare would necessarily change their policy.

I am afraid the forum here is the wrong place for such a discussion.

2 Likes