U.S. aims to give up control over ICANN

[MWD]

What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... print.html

[kurt]

https://medium.com/p/bcc623b7605a same thing but it mentions Namecoin !

[yasser]

https://medium.com/p/bcc623b7605a same thing but it mentions Namecoin !

hey
what do you think about mentioning namecoin in the ICANN draft report?
https://www.icann.org/en/about/planning ... b14-en.pdf

[yasser]

do the developers of namecoin participate in ICANN summit 23-27 march in singapore?

[kurt]

This is massive news

I cant believe they mention Namecoin as a possible successor

[yasser]

maybe...

[georgem]

This is hilarious, I can't believe my eyes...
ICANN mentioning Namecoin three times in their paper:

https://www.icann.org/en/about/planning ... b14-en.pdf

More recently, an emphasis on distribution of control [New yorker 2014] and privacy has surfaced , with the Namecoin system being the most well known example . The PKI that exists represents a source to large scale surveillance and hence a problem for privacy. A mixture of self-certifying objects and an opt in PKI or perhaps parallel PKIs and Peer to Peer ( P2P ) systems may be the answer.

[virtual_master]

They seem to be aware of Namecoin.
I am thinking how could we increase the Namecoin economy and integrate the ICANN services in the actual Namecoin structure or with some enhancements.
Could an independent organization like ICANN make his domain entries(.com .net .org) in the blockchain without giving up his profitable business and his control over the domains in specific top level domains ?
We should have a construction which would enable for somebody to create a top level domain(for ex. .com) in the Namecoin blockchain and the control over this top level domain should enable for him to create domains(example.com) which he could sell.
The sold domain would be under the control of the new owner until expires with no possibility to withdraw.
With this possibility we could propose to the ICANN to put all his domains on Namecoin and the neutrality would be secured(no confiscation possible - absolute neutrality) but the ICANN would still maintain his business.
With the actual domain structure even if the ICANN will be not under US control there is no guaranty that they don't switch off some domains if put under pressure.
What do you mean ?

[georgem]

What do you mean ?

Sounds like an incredible idea.

But somehow we must adjust namecoin protocol so whole namespaces belong to a person (or group)

That would imply something like a parent --> child foldersystem that namecoin completely lacks at the moment.

I mean, obviously... d/ doesn't really exist.

It's not like d/ is a folder... it's just the two first characters of the "name"

We discussed something similar here---> http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.ph ... 4&start=10

[virtual_master]

Sounds like an incredible idea.

But somehow we must adjust namecoin protocol so whole namespaces belong to a person (or group)

That would imply something like a parent --> child foldersystem that namecoin completely lacks at the moment.

I mean, obviously... d/ doesn't really exist.

It's not like d/ is a folder... it's just the two first characters of the "name"

We discussed something similar here---> http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.ph ... 4&start=10

Yes. The actual protocol doesn't allow such a structure, at least not so as discussed there.
But:
1. We could think about how could it be implemented if needed.
2. Then contact ICANN and ask them if they are interested.
3. Implementing the top level domain feature support in Namecoin(activated only by the ordered top level domains) for a contribution to the Namecoin development fond.
The development contributions should come in advance like by the ASICS order.
4. Hand over the top level domain control to the legitimate organization.