kijeda

https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/the-chagos-archipelag...

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-davies-internal-tld-00...

There are certain circumstances where private network operators may wish to use their own domain naming scheme that is not intended to be used or accessible by the global domain name system (DNS), such as within closed corporate or home networks.

The "internal" top-level domain is reserved to provide this purpose in the DNS. Such domains will not resolve in the global DNS, but can be configured within closed networks as the network operator sees fit.

This reservation is intended for a similar purpose that private-use IP address ranges that are set aside (e.g. [RFC1918]).

The US Government ended its involvement in IANA when it moved to an international oversight model in 2016. IANA is operated by Public Technical Identifiers which is an affiliate of ICANN, and ICANN provides all of its funding. Governments have a say in how ICANN operates through its Government Advisory Committee, at which all governments — including the US — have a seat.

The license is a bit perplexing at https://gitlab.com/mbryant/functiontrace/-/blob/master/LICEN...

It says it is licensed under Apache License 2.0, but also under "Prosperity Public License 3.0.0" which limits use for a commercial purpose to 30 days.

It would appear to be in the final stages of standardization in the IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122b...

Your first suggestion almost perfectly articulated UNLOCODEs, e.g. "US LAX" https://service.unece.org/trade/locode/usk.htm

Some TLDs like .tk (Tokelau) are offered for free.

Are you sure its not in reference to "Greek" the language, rather than "Greece" the country? "el" is coding for Greek in ISO 639, IANA language subtags, etc.

... and .hm and .nf.

The history on why some external territories are coded is because an international standard is the basis for the two-letters used for these TLDs, and that standard is used for other purposes. Far flung localities are often coded due to things like physical mail delivery or customs boundaries which utilize the same standard.

Why does .eu exist? Essentially because "eu" was coded for the European Union to facilitate "EUR" as a currency code when the Euro was introduced. ISO 4217 currency codes derive from ISO 3166 country codes.

ICANN is finalizing a policy that will govern this question. In short, if adopted, 5-10 years after the country is removed from the ISO 3166-1 standard it will be removed as a TLD.

https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/ccnso-propose...

It may seem like a pedantic point, but these top-level domains are not owned. They currently have registry operation rights which does not confer permanent ownership.

It was about 80Mbps earlier this year: https://twitter.com/kjd/status/1405887961791569924

LA: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-15/coronaviru...

I don't think it is so simple. I live in LA and can't practically use public transport to commute, but I've lived in less dense cities that have far more effective public transport because the routes are designed better. LA's bus routes feel almost randomly placed, I'm used to having bus routes deliberately serving as feeders to train routes, and timing the schedules so that buses arrive for a swift transfer and you are never waiting.

On my commute to work I see buses from half a dozen different agencies, the fact that every individual city in the metro area seems to run its own bus service is probably another piece of the problem.

700,000 records from a chain with 7,000 hotels, per the article. How do you know you're a victim of this breach? Assuming each hotel on average probably has occupancy of at least 100 rooms, it could account for just a single day of reservations across their organization.

In short, it seems too early to assume if you've ever stayed at a hotel you are a victim.

Isn’t an O-1 visa designed for situations like your friend?

Zhongguo also has .中国 and .中國 as top-level domains which would presumably be more intelligible to Chinese speakers.

Baggage claim in most airports around the world is behind some kind of one way exit point so you need to have been a traveller on a flight to get access to the baggage carousel.

It is also not uncommon in places where petty theft is high for you to have to show your baggage receipt matches the baggage tag before you can take it from the baggage handling area.

This assumes an even distribution of likelihood this will happen, which is far from the reality. You can proactively reduce your risk — don't check in late, watch to make sure the check-in agent actually puts the tag on until you see it go down the conveyer belt, don't book tight connections, book even more generous connections in complex airports when you have terminal changes across the airfield from each other or airports with a poor reputation for mislaying bags on connections, use transfer airports that have been explicitly designed for rapid transfers (e.g. MUC). A general rule of thumb is if you are going to have to uncomfortably rush to make a connection, your bag is even less likely to make it.

Plus, should your luggage get waylaid, there are other things you can do to hasten its recovery: have a fairly unique bag that is unlikely to be mistaken by another traveller as theirs, clearly label your contact details inside and out in case the paper tag gets ripped off.

It was pretty straightforward. The return counter was right by the front door where you'd typically do other kinds of returns or exchanges, and after returning they give you a voucher for a percentage off purchases at Kohl's that day (20% off if I remember correctly).

What is odd is my most recent Amazon return they did not offer that store as an return option, instead my nearest drop off point was an Amazon Books location about 15 miles further away. I'd assumed the Kohl's experiment was over.

No, this only impacts configuration on the validation side, not signing.

.中国 is the country-code top-level domain for China, and has its own set of country-specific rules that they have devised.

Emoji is illegal according to the IETF IDN specification. Some naive clients allow it (i.e. don't follow the standard) but ICANN rules prohibit registries allowing registration of labels that are disallowed by the standard.

Unfortunately for my gym, their service is to offer exercise equipment and they don't need to charge me a subscription in order to provide it. They need to do that in order to make money, which is a completely separate issue.

A big factor is that ICANN is comprised of multiple stakeholder communities of competing interests that have to come up with consensus to make new policies. Refining the model of what is published in the WHOIS has been the subject of working groups in ICANN for over 10 years, but consensus was never reached because you had a huge spread of opinions that never converged. Privacy advocates argued for no WHOIS, whereas interests from law enforcement, security research and intellectual property arguing for full disclosure.

WHOIS the protocol is not the problem, it is the data it is used to publish. Then GDPR-related mitigations required would be the same whether you are publishing with WHOIS, RDAP or something else.

Also, ARIN only has allocations made in North America. Plus, ARIN only covers North American allocations.

This entire project is less than 20 lines of code:

https://github.com/phishai/phish-ai-api/blob/master/phish_ai...

These don't strike me as comparable scenarios.

In the case of .dev, it didn't even appear in the weeds of usage when the DNS root servers were measured for traffic to identify potential new TLDs usage conflicts in the real world (e.g. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-0... p22). Even if .dev were in significant usage, that traffic was not reaching the domain name system. The complaint seems to be fundamentally to be about the pre-loaded configuration of Chrome, not the DNS.

In the case of your regex, it would breaks millions of production domains in used today and fail in a wide variety of scenarios. It is only understandable in the context of someone who hasn't done any cursory research into the topic.

Never had a chance? The rules that would allow this kind of allocation were debated publicly and strenuously for many years in Internet governance circles, with many iterations of drafts and public comment periods. Some of those rules specifically governed which domains should be disallowed because they would have impact on existing utilization, as well as those that needed to be reserved for technical reasons.

Wasn't it HOV only prior to this? Isn't it adding a new capability for single drivers to use it that didn't exist before?

It seems like the inverse of the Ryanair situation. There, they needed their pilots to take vacation en masse to remain in compliance, here they need pilots to not take vacation.