On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 09:43 +0100, Michael Blizek wrote: > Hi! Hi.
> [....] I guess relationships between the > (sub)domain provider and the user can be much more loose. For example, the > FB-foundation, debian, hardware vendors and others could register some > domains in order to give users free subdomains. The freedombox could integrate > an interface for selecting domains from a list and quick registration. Abuse > by (sub)domain providers could be further to reduced by requiring them to sign > a contract to get listed. This is a really interesting problem. You gave me an idea for something to put on the FreedomBox Foundation wishlist: a kind of "Better Box Businesses Bureau" to reputation track public small business FreedomBox service providers. The DNS case, though: Do you mean (A) or (B) here: (A) The foundation and a few other big orgs buy some domains. They give subdomains to freedombox users. (B) Anyone who buys a domain and signs a contract can be registered as a freedombox subdomain provider. The contract is with one or more of the big orgs. I think you mean (B) but I wanted to be sure. Either way, there is a big bug. We will have created a centralized database of essentially all the freedomboxes. Recently, the US government made a mistake and shut down, en masse, tens of thousands of domains allegedly linked to child porn -- only to realize a few days later that they only meant to shut down a few 10s of sites, and that the rest were innocent. The government did this at the DNS level - it seized the domains. With what you described, there is a ready-made master list of which domains need to be shut down to disrupt all freedom boxes. In most realistic implementations, not only a list of domains but of the people running them and the easily traced owners of subdomains. Problems like that make me want to stick mostly with the friend of a friend model and the small-business-but- -without-central-registration model. -t > > On 23:15 Sat 26 Feb , Thomas Lord wrote: > > > There should not be that much centralisation worries > > > as long as there are enough (sub)domain providers you > > > can choose from. > > > > For example, in my extended family there are a few > > of us who are tech-savvy. We could coordinate to > > set up and share out domains, a fat pipe, hard-to- > > admin services and so on ... while other relatives > > can still use their personal boxes for easier to admin > > and most private stuff. > > > > I think that is towards the right model of how these > > things get deployed: they are "sold" (or otherwise > > got in the hands of) real world groups --- tribes --- > > whether that means friends and family, clubs, > > samizdat societies or what have you. Within each group, > > there are specialized roles. > > This is certainly a way to do it. But I guess relationships between the > (sub)domain provider and the user can be much more loose. For example, the > FB-foundation, debian, hardware vendors and others could register some > domains in order to give users free subdomains. The freedombox could integrate > an interface for selecting domains from a list and quick registration. Abuse > by (sub)domain providers could be further to reduced by requiring them to sign > a contract to get listed. > > If this is not enough, we could still do this with tor-hidden services or > "real" domains, the friend to friend model you have suggested or some kind of > decentral name services. > > -Michi _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
