Torrent-Finder Plans To Fight Domain Seizure

What Would Happen If Wikileaks Got Its Own Top Level Domain?

from the a-freedom-tld? dept

Thu, Dec 9th 2010 2:53pm — Mike Masnick

With all the talk about how the whole Wikileaks/domain name seizures issue is about a centralized vs. decentralized internet and even talk of a more decentralized DNS system, IP Watch raises an interesting question. With ICANN's plans to allow just about any TLD, what would happen if Wikileaks were to apply for its very own TLD?

Given ICANN's official statement that it does not take down domain names and has no technical or legal authority to participate in such forms of censorship (and, in fact, we've noted in the past that ICANN has refused to meet with IP Czar Victoria Espinel about this, noting that it would not be appropriate), would it allow such a TLD to be created, and then take a hands off approach?

What if it wasn't even a .wikileaks (or just .leaks) TLD, but a more general .open DNS, managed by an organization that agreed not to censor anything, no matter what the cause?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dns system, icann, openness, tld, top level domain, wikileaks
Companies: icann, wikileaks

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 2:57pm

Answer...
"What Would Happen If Wikileaks Got Its Own Top Level Domain?"

Then Joe Lieberman would shit himself. Period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:03pm

Re: Answer...
shit himself and have a period! wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EC, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:06pm

Governments would probably pressure ISPs (who control the vast majority of DNS servers used by the public) to not forward look ups to the root server in question... If the TLD is not accessible by default for most people, it becomes useless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:12pm

An application for a top level domain requires that a served community is identified, and that there is proof that the community is not properly served in existing ways.

.leaks is about as likely as .pedophile or .mafia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve Gaucher, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:14pm

Re:
But I can then just use Google's DNS servers (I already do anyway... 8.8.8.8!), or anyone's. Maybe this same organization can start up their own DNS server.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:15pm

its already happening
it's called decentralized.wikileaks.

whether it happens via peer to peer dns or another method, it's basically going to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatis42? (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:16pm

Re:
but .open seems perfectly acceptable.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:19pm

Re:
...or a takeoff on the founder's name: www.wikileaks.a**
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:33pm

Re: Re:
.corruptioniscounterproductive
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vic, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:41pm

The politics will find a way to sneak into any setup...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
greg.fenton (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:41pm

Re: Answer...
Joe Lieberman would either "fix" the internet or "un-invent" it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Answer...
"un-invent" it? Will Al Gore put up with that shit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 4:00pm

"What Would Happen If Wikileaks Got Its Own Top Level Domain?"
Nothing more significant than if it doesn't. wikileaks for all intents and purposes is an idea more than a website.

The idea is that information will find a way out there, and this is the very beginning of how it all starts.

An example: Wikileaks doesn't contain credit card numbers or SSN's, that will be amongst the next steps, and it won't even be released by criminal gangs, it'll be released with concerned Sysadmins that want better ways to conduct financial transactions and maintain identity. 16/9-digit unencrypted codes is not a secure method of maintaining identity/financial identity. Eventually, an entire current list of United States Social Security numbers will be released publicly, throwing commerce a fairly big jolt. The number will be fairly useless, as fraud becomes trivial in the archaic way we use this number.

We can either prepare for it now and change to a different method, or watch as our economy slowly crumbles based on legacy ideas that this information will stay forever secure and locked up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 4:02pm

Re: Re:
Is .fu already taken?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 4:35pm

A Pirate Party one maybe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
beckerist, 9 Dec 2010 @ 4:44pm

Re: Re:
I do, and set them up everywhere I go. Super easy to remember:
8.8.8.8
8.8.4.4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicolasp (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 4:59pm

Couldn't it be something like a hybrid between SETI and anon/onion/stealthnet thingies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mrtraver (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 5:13pm

Re: Answer...
I'm not sure he is smart enough to know what having their own tld means, but we could always hope...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shutslar (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 5:46pm

managed by an organization that agreed not to censor anything
But you HAVE to think of the children! If we don't censor sensitive government and other documents all our children could be irreparably harmed in some unknown manner. OMG! Just think of all the damage that could be done if the children actually seen and read uncensored documents!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2010 @ 6:37pm

I like this better
How about this for a TLD: wikileaks.liebermanisabutthead
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 9:11pm

Re: Answer...
No worries, I'm pretty sure he's in the Depends demographic anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Sullivan, 10 Dec 2010 @ 6:31am

Isn't that counter productive
Wouldn't that make them easier to block?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2010 @ 6:44am

Our government is supposed to protect us against such abuses as the domain name seizures and censorship. I though our rights would be restored under Obama, but I have never seen a more spineless do nothing president since Carter. It gets worse and worse as they treat all of us more and more like criminals with no rights. We are becoming prisoners in our own country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2010 @ 6:54am

There should be a .wiki TLD. That would be awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2010 @ 7:15am

Re:
An application for a top level domain requires that a served community is identified, and that there is proof that the community is not properly served in existing ways.

The existence of the .biz domain suggests otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2010 @ 7:20am

Re: Isn't that counter productive
I don't think it would be any easier technically to block "*.open" than "wikileaks.com", and perhaps politically a little more difficult, especially if there are a variety of sites using the domain and not just wikileaks. Easier to campaign against one "evil" organization than against a whole group whose common purpose is openness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]