Re: New DNS vulnerability: political overreach

[John Levine via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

It appears that Eliot Lear via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> said:
> If people want to get away from country ownership, there is a somewhat 
> experimental approach called GNU Name service.  See RFC 9498.  I don't 
> pretend that this is a replacement for the current system, but if anyone 
> wants to get to that replacement, maybe it's worth a read.

It's interesting up to a point, but it has the same scaling issues of
any blockchain, or for that matter, of HOSTS.TXT.

R's,
John



> Eliot
>
> On 20.07.2026 02:26, Randy Bush via NANOG wrote:
> > > A Texas court has suspended the .com domain of a Dutch porn site which
> > > doesn't have any business presence in Texas, because it doesn't comply
> > > with Texas rules about porn (which are extremely onerous):
> > >
> > > https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-secures-landmark-legal-victory-lock-pornographic-website-domain-and
> > >
> > > Clearly the US is not fit to manage top-level domains (other than .us
> > > of course) even though it ended up with them by historical accident.
> > > It worked for a while but now it's not working any more. Has anyone
> > > come up with any plan to solve this and make the DNS more neutral?
> > first, this is far from new.  and it is both a technical and political
> > problem.
> >
> > the dns is hierarchic, i.e. control is centralized.  and centralization
> > and hierarchy are foci for 'attacks'.  but be patient, deleg is gonna
> > solve everything :) ...

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/G3DT5ONSDWKYSHFN5KOOYD2VAUUPG5NJ/