Re: New DNS vulnerability: political overreach

[David Conrad via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Jul 28, 2026, at 9:32 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> Getting back to the technical issue though, all these things do is
> reinforce the thought that if you are using a domain for commercial
> purposes , you probably want to strongly consider one managed by a non-US
> registrar if possible, 

Again, this was a takedown at the registry, i.e., Verisign, not the registrar.  To avoid this sort of action, you’d 
have to use a top-level domain operated by a company outside of the US, e.g., a ccTLD not in US/PR/AS/GU/VI/MP/(UM) or 
one of the new gTLDs not operated by a company subject to US jurisdiction (I’m too lazy to look that up).  Of course, 
going that route will probably result in your customers getting confused because you don’t have a .COM domain name and, 
of course, you’d be subject to the legal jurisdiction of the country the TLD is operated in. 

Regards,
-drc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/EJQDWWJ64FRCFR4WJ22JQYAUVJIVQ6DX/