Back

.self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

361 points7 hourshccf.onmy.cloud
anilgulecha2 hours ago

The "one free domain per person" isn't the interesting part really - that will be hard to police unless domain name is a function of ID proof (avoids squatting).

0) The actual intersting part of a new TLD can be growing reputation by post-facto taking away a domain without recourse in case of squatting. Instead of adversarial takedowns (which produce false positives as noted), let anyone challenge an inactive domain in the first year or two.

1) If they can figure out a mechanism for moving a domain from "assigned" -> "squatted".

2) Domain must match (or derive from) a verified identity - e.g. your domain is a hash/slug of your government ID. Makes squatting structurally impossible because you can't claim someone else's name / gov (Sign in with passkeys linked to a national ID).

3) Proof of human effort, reduced with time - require periodic renewal with proof-of-use (DNS TXt updates, through a flow hard to automate).

4) Kill speculative market - domains are non-sellable and non-transferable - always go back to the free pool, and stay there for 30 days mandatorily.

Some mix of these could be the right structure for a trule high-reputation, free domain.

ipaddr2 hours ago

Sounds like a bad domain for self hosting. You have to update txt records randomly and your domain can be taken for whatever reason. Whatever value you build goes away if you are inactive. You cannot transfer ownership killing any value you added.

anilgulecha1 hour ago

Hence the "in the first year or two". Some more human effort to showcase proof early on, then the domain is solidified for you like iwth any other registrar. This is something like captcha/bcrypt - a single instance isn't a burden, but doing it at scale is costly.

> You cannot transfer ownership killing any value you added

I think this is by design. The domain should be for personal use - hence free.

BuyMyBitcoins2 hours ago

I dislike the term “domain squatting”. It should be called “domain scalping”.

nonethewiser57 minutes ago

Or domain ownership.

koolala42 minutes ago

It isn't scalping if your actually using it. It's easy to spot a scalping site since its just an advertisement to buy the domain.

bottled_poe23 minutes ago

Or domain leasing.

goldenarm6 hours ago

Remember when the .tk TLD became free 20 years ago ? Every hobbyist took one, then scammers followed, then Facebook and antiviruses started blocking it.

I remember publishing a website for a class on my .tk domain, the teacher couldn't open it and I almost got a failing grade because of it.

mort963 hours ago

A friend almost failed an IT class because his website didn't render at all in IE6. This was during the time of IE9. The teacher just hadn't updated their browser in a long time.

I don't get how you get to be an IT teacher without knowing the most basic troubleshooting steps to get assignments to run.

Cpoll3 hours ago

I had a similar class where they threatened to fail us if we didn't use Dreamweaver and instead wrote our own html.

HerbManic2 hours ago

Dreamweaver was cool as a beginner because it took a lot of the troublesome parts out of the equation. But it did end up being more of a hindrance than a benefit the further you went in.

layla5alive2 hours ago

Was that class taught by a certain woman who had a business making websites, per-chance?

dcow2 hours ago

You just described my teacher, and I’m fairly certain we didn’t go to the same middle school.

arsenicwater2 hours ago

Were they paying for the Dreamweaver licenses?

+1
nekusar2 hours ago
AFF875 hours ago

What a memory you have unlocked. They were everywhere. I remember the urban legend that .tk domains were X% of their GDP

captn3m05 hours ago

10% apparently for .tk. I also remember .tv windfall, which is 8-9% of their GDP.

artursapek4 hours ago

The .ai TLD is some tiny island with a few thousand people

+2
gerdesj3 hours ago
tyre5 hours ago

And the .sy boom until startups got enough heat for, you know, funding the Assad regime.

+1
RobotToaster4 hours ago
glenstein1 hour ago

I remember that. The one thing I would add is I think the usage was much more general purpose. "Free stuff" sites were a big deal and huge source of traffic and .tk was widely shared on those. You could have a banner with ads and have the domain for free.

DonHopkins4 hours ago
preisschild5 hours ago

Core memory unlocked

Not enough allowance to fund a .com domain, had to use freenom / tk + cloudflare for my first years of self hosting

cj5 hours ago

Double unlock.

In the mid 2000’s, I moderated a domain name discussion forum in exchange for free hosting. “X forum posts per month = x gb of bandwidth”

My goal was to post enough for them to give me WHM access so I could try to resell it.

Those were the days.

dinkleberg5 hours ago

Those were the days indeed. A big part for me is probably because I was a teen at the time with little responsibility, but getting to be a part of the wild west days of the internet was a magical experience.

+1
cj4 hours ago
hahahaa49 minutes ago

In my case, ignorance unlocked. I never heard of tk and I remember 36k modems so old enough.

I think reason is I went to work, slung .NET and didn't think much about computers otherwise except occasional reading some C++ books for "fun".

tamimio5 hours ago

tk and cc, the domains i used to use for php reverse shell haha, bring back memories!

paxcoder6 hours ago

>One Person, One Subdomain

singpolyma34 hours ago

Indeed. That's the necessary

HumanCCF4 hours ago

Yes, one of the key principles we follow is that all the perks we aim to provide must come with some limit to prevent abuse.

vessenes6 hours ago

Hi there. I've done a bit of work on specifying human-centric identity goals for the internet over the last 10 years. May I suggest you look at Microsoft Vega? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/vega-zero-know... (I have no affiliation).

In brief, I think they aim to solve the most important needs for online identity-gated services in a maximally private way.

For instance, I'd like to see .self offer the following: a single domain to any person in the world with identity blinded. I can imagine two 'tranches': say xxx.v.self for 'verified' and xxx.u.self for 'unverified'.

Both would use a Zero Knowledge proof to confirm they had not already registered a domain; verified would register with you guys or a data broker some PII in case it was needed for verification / checks / etc, while unverified would maintain the promise of one domain = one person, but not allow the TLD or registrars to be able to unblind which person it is.

Use cases like this would be really fantastic. And, obviously could be tested out and tried on a normal domain name while you make your pitch, and put in for the auction / however ICANN is currently managing TLD launches.

HumanCCF5 hours ago

Please submit this to us via our contact form, we will need lots of community input! https://hccf.onmy.cloud/get-involved/

quotemstr5 hours ago

It is good that Microsoft Vega is popularizing zero-knowledge identity-based attestations. It's unfortunate that they're doing so in a relatively inflexible way.

I wish the Vega people had oriented their work around general-purpose zkVMs instead of application-specific ZK circuits. The latter is a fleeting efficiency win; the former is a permanent flexibility advantage. ZK-based privacy advocates shouldn't over-index on proof performance on today's systems when zkVM systems have been making multiple-OOM performance improvements over the past couple of years.

IOW, with Nova, the Vega people are trying to do something very clever (just as the BBS+ people are trying to do something very cleaver) that general-purpose compute wins have made unnecessary.

Something like RISC Zero will let you run arbitrary Rust code under zero knowledge in a few hundred milliseconds with little fuss. Nobody appreciates that identity verification is one special case of a vast set of useful applications enabled by widespread adoption of a ZK compute platform.

nl2 hours ago

Disagree with this.

RISC Zero is useful for crypto use-cases: Other people need to verify an exact program was run.

The identity use case is about connecting sources of trust (document issuers) with consumers of that trust ("this is a real person") in ways that don't release more than the minimum information required ("the passport office has signed that this is a real person so we can trust that").

Single purpose circuits make a lot of sense for this - there is just no need to a full ZK RISC-V VM for this use case.

vessenes2 hours ago

Can you talk more about RISC Zero? Does it require a TEE of some sort? I had trouble finding a quality mid-detail spec of how it works; lots of marketing materials basically.

greyface-6 hours ago

https://hccf.onmy.cloud/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/dot-self....

> Everyone entitled to a subdomain at no cost

How are you going to pay for the (substantial) cost of running a TLD without registration fee revenue? Is this a loss leader for other services? Are you operating on a 100% donation model?

> No parking, squatting, or reselling

How do you plan to tell the difference between a parked/squatted domain and one in legitimate use but offering no public-facing services?

HumanCCF6 hours ago

> How are you going to pay for the (substantial) cost of running a TLD without registration fee revenue? Is this a loss leader for other services? Are you operating on a 100% donation model?

We plan on operating the domain as a public good and are actively seeking sponsors to help fund us. Think of it as a similar model to ISRG and LetsEncrypt.

> No parking, squatting, or reselling

Our rule of one person per subdomain will hopefully prevent this at scale, though it will admittedly be more difficult to examine any particular domain so closely. We may have to implement some type of heartbeat where the owner of said domain has to respond within a certain amount of time.

SahAssar6 hours ago

> Think of it as a similar model to ISRG and LetsEncrypt.

In that case it was started by an institution (mozilla) with a lot of heft in the area (mozilla's CA program is one of the most broadly used) and was backed by other orgs (google) that had a vested interest in it's success. I'd be interested to hear which potential sponsors you see in a similar situation here?

> rule of one person per subdomain

What is the plan to (without costly overhead or cost to the end user) validate who is an actual person? Even large corporations with loads of resources have problems with this without resorting to treating it as if a person equals a credit card number.

HumanCCF5 hours ago

> In that case it was started by an institution (mozilla) with a lot of heft in the area (mozilla's CA program is one of the most broadly used) and was backed by other orgs (google) that had a vested interest in it's success. I'd be interested to hear which potential sponsors you see in a similar situation here?

We are reaching out to companies who operate in the self-hosted space, academia, ISPs, registars, as well as digital rights orgs. We believe they would be aligned with this mission and ultimately benefit from such a TLD existing!

> What is the plan to (without costly overhead or cost to the end user) validate who is an actual person? Even large corporations with loads of resources have problems with this without resorting to treating it as if a person equals a credit card number.

There are a few emerging technologies we are evaluating to help with this but have not settled on one just yet. Whatever we choose, we will start small and go from there. Worst-case scenario, we start with the credit card approach and iterate. This will ultimately all be a part of the evaluation process we go through with ICANN.

SahAssar4 hours ago

To be honest it feels like these answers boil down to "we feel it'd be nice if this existed but we have no actual answers as to how to get it done".

---

To stick with your comparison: when letsencrypt and ISRG launched they had actual answers for how to deal with the hard challenges in their space:

A) how to get included in a trust roots (crossigning with IdenTrust at first and the knowledge and expertise of how to get included in the longer term)

B) Automated domain validation in a standardized way (ACME)

C) Long term commitments of sponsorships to ensure people could trust it would stick around

---

I wish you the best of luck, but I think this might have needed to bake a bit longer before publicizing.

DonHopkins4 hours ago

You need to find a benevolent selfless soul who will sponsor you.

al_borland6 hours ago

How is one person per subdomain enforceable? How is a person uniquely identified and tracked?

dom966 hours ago

My guess is by using ID verification similar to how I do it on https://onlyhumanhub.com/

kokanee5 hours ago

I'm curious about how this works, but it doesn't look like I can find out without creating an account. I see that it says "Link your existing social accounts to prove you're not a bot." How does having social media accounts prove I'm not a bot?

+1
SahAssar5 hours ago
AnthonyMouse5 hours ago

> How are you going to pay for the (substantial) cost of running a TLD without registration fee revenue?

Is it actually a substantial expense? The TLD itself only has to publish the nameserver records, which generally have a TTL of about a day. A DNS response is a few hundred bytes. Big DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare would make requests for every actively used domain every day, but then cache them. Smaller providers wouldn't cache as well but also wouldn't each request every domain every day. For e.g. a million personal domains, ballpark estimate is somewhere in the few TB a month of traffic. Maybe a little over personal hobby project money but definitely not outrageous for a small non-profit organization.

> How do you plan to tell the difference between a parked/squatted domain and one in legitimate use but offering no public-facing services?

This is the easy one. Squatters buy domains because they want to sell them. To sell them they have to make it publicly known to prospective buyers that the domain is available for sale. So then if anyone lists the domain for sale anywhere, you make them prove that they own it (which any actual buyer would also have to do in order to not get scammed) and when they do the domain is forfeit.

It's kind of sad that we don't do that for all domains. Domain squatters can go to hell.

greyface-4 hours ago

Much of the cost here comes from compliance with the ICANN gTLD program structure, not from running the underlying technical infrastructure (which is not limited to DNS - you also need EPP/RDAP/etc). See https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements for (hundred+ page) documents outlining registry responsibilities. Registries can outsource some of this to an ICANN-accredited "registry service provider", but should expect to pay upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly for the privilege.

madsushi4 hours ago

It costs ~$200,000 to apply for a TLD, and there's an ongoing renewal cost in the tens of thousands of USD.

HumanCCF4 hours ago

For this application round, ICANN is running an Applicant Support Program, or ASP. The applicants seeking to apply for a TLD this round who qualify for the ASP will have a substantially reduced application fee, among other benefits. Our organization is one such org who has qualified for the ASP so we will not have to pay the full $227,000 application fee.

KomoD3 hours ago

How much is the reduced fee then? As I understand it's somewhere between 75-85% less, which is still a lot of money.

Also, who is paying for the reduced fee, administrative and infra costs? And have you actually submitted gTLD application, or are you trying to crowdfund? Unclear to me.

AnthonyMouse4 hours ago

That's definitely not a cartel then.

pavel_lishin6 hours ago

It's not clear whether they're actually talking about domains or subdomains there, which is a worrying sign from a potential registrar.

favorited6 hours ago

Any domain that isn't one of the Top Level Domains is also a subdomain.

maximilianthe14 hours ago

Isn't the actual top level domain an empty one after TLD? Looking like «.com.» with trailing dot

akerl_2 hours ago

I mean sure, but if you started talking about google.com as a subdomain, real humans would correctly look at you funny.

prepend4 hours ago

Is it really that expensive to run a TLD? Name servers are notoriously long running on ancient spec servers.

I’m guessing, if designed well, the registration process could run on lightweight infrastructure. Maybe $1-5k total per year, not counting time. So it’s enough for a fun hobby project.

psychoslave5 hours ago

Might be a public service? I guess many countries already had such a thing with running cost several order higher than such a thing as a TLD, operating for centuries now.

block_dagger18 minutes ago

> Human-Centered

If this is supposed to be human-centered, why isn't it .human? I assume there will be many agents with their own ".self" domains that have very little human oversight.

BLKNSLVR1 hour ago

I'm just being a negative nancy here, but I don't think I'd want to advertise that any of my sites are specifically self hosted, in that it kinda asks for ... security probing, since it's more likely than not got less than professional security surrounding it.

Having said that gestures to the entirety of the internet

So maybe not such a big deal.

drummojg1 hour ago

My initial thought as well, so you're no outlier, unless we are.

arrty881 hour ago

Why not? Surely you’re putting a cdn in-front of it still.

jerf4 hours ago

I don't understand the naming scheme, or the apparent lack of it. I half expected it to be some sort of UUID which would at least makes sense. At one per person for 7 billion people that's a little under 33 bits. Make it a nice round 40 for a bit of future proofing (the scheme doesn't need to live forever) and to make a bit of space internally and that's 5 words from a 256-word list. That would seem to make a lot more sense then first-come, first-serve on something as easy to abuse as .self.

However, perhaps more relevantly, it isn't clear why this needs a TLD and all the hassle associated with a tld when it could just as easily be attached to any convenient domain name lying around that you have access to, such as, oh, say, onmy.cloud.

Then again I have this objection to almost all TLDs. But I'm not sure I'm wrong.

At the very least if you want to show ICANN that you mean business I would strongly suggest just doing it on onmy.cloud, and tell people that if you get the .self you'll transparently migrate their onmy.cloud domain on to .self when you get it. Nothing says "I can do this" like actually doing it.

zenoprax3 hours ago

Controlling the TLD has its own benefits and drawbacks (managing email reputation, for example) but as a regular person I have more reason to trust `.cloud` than `.self` purely on the basis of proven continuity. My `.com` domain will almost certainly live as long as the internet does provided that I keep paying to renew.

Regardless, a UUID is probably the right call. It doesn't help with memorability but it's at least more stable than an IPv4/IPv6 address and can be hard-coded. I wonder if you would get a full zone or if it's just an A/AAAA record given their broader goals of email and VPN tunneling.

pizzafeelsright3 hours ago

imho we should be able to register ipv6 as our identity.

nilslindemann51 minutes ago

States could grant such domains when individuals register their identity, for example, "klaus-mueller-<close eyes say first word that comes to your mind>.self". It runs on a VPS, and it is well documented how to create and run a website on that. School kids are introduced to it. Would be an excellent entry point into digital sovereignty for citizens.

bananamogul7 hours ago

Hold up...why isn't .self listed here:

https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db

Is this just an idea at this point, or some kind of "you have to use our DNS to resolve .self domains" scheme - ?

HumanCCF7 hours ago

This is an idea at this point, the next round of gTLD applications is currently open and we are in the process of applying and we are trying to garner support!

NewJazz5 hours ago

Oh god not this shit again.

Inb4 they give away .docx

+1
kemotep5 hours ago
plopz6 hours ago

Could do something like .brave and just sidestep ICANN?

jazzyjackson6 hours ago

With your hosts file or running a DNS on localist you can do whatever you want

+1
skyyler6 hours ago
DonHopkins4 hours ago

Oh great, an entire .brave TLD shilling a BAT shitcoin crazy crypto scam. Don't we already have enough of those?

paul79866 hours ago

So this is my iCloud on the web for AI agents to pay me for access to my content (Cloudflare allows the bots in upon paying) :-)

Cloudflare offers this now (their Pay to Crawl service) but its not geared towards every human getting paid for their content. As of today Facebook and other social media platforms profit from our content....not us!

TZubiri6 hours ago

Domain names are not centralized, there is no central entity that controls an approved list of kosher domains.

zamadatix4 hours ago

This is practically useless information (and I don't mean that in the flippant "of low regard" slang sense, I mean a literal "this information becomes irrelevant once you look at what practically applying it does" sense). E.g.:

- Centralized authorities for IP & DNS assignment? You (+anyone else you can convince) can just ignore that and it'll work in your bubble anyways!

- No centralized authorities for IP & DNS assignment? You (+anyone else you can convince) can just ignore that and it'll work in your bubble anyways!

My above pedantry aside, the article is explicitly about "The Internet" (it's even using the capital "I" oft forgotten about these days). I.e. the worldwide bubble which has centrally controlled assignment via ICANN/IANA, separate from other systems using the DNS/IP protocols. That's why it talks about ICANN and why bananamogul mentioned .self has not been centrally registered with IANA yet.

mkl7 hours ago

Site errored out and gave me three different error messages as I reloaded. I guess it's self-hosted on something underpowered, and dynamic where static would do the job?

HumanCCF6 hours ago

Indeed, this response is way more than we expected. Trying to set up a web cache now.

9dev7 hours ago

Shotgun on your.self! That’s going to yield a ton of great second level sub domains :)

HumanCCF6 hours ago

We are probably going to reserve some of the more obvious ones for specific purposes, e.g. my.self automatically pointing to a homepage on your local network. As we go through the gTLD evaluation process we will be keen to solicit feedback from the community on more specifics!

OJFord4 hours ago

And the slang and typos? (ur.self, mi.self, his.self, there.self, ther.self, theyre.self, they.self, ...)

myself2485 hours ago

Hey now!

Hugsbox6 hours ago

go.fuck.your.self would be a pretty good one

laszlokorte6 hours ago

  write.it.your.self
  think.4.your.self
  written.by.my.self
all CNAME -> claude.ai
tbossanova6 hours ago

treat.your.self

BLKNSLVR1 hour ago

treat.yo.self

neogodless4 hours ago

Hosted ... all.by.my.self

catfish-12346 hours ago

hug.your.self

fortran773 hours ago

go.----.your.self

DonHopkins4 hours ago

serve.your.self

dancing.with.my.self

reference.self

interest.self

pleasure.self

gratification.self

b.true@to.thine.own.self

touch.a.touch.a.touch.a.touch.me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x92ccvZCzlg

samgranieri5 hours ago

I’m just using .home.arpa for my self hosted stuff. Free, just have to deal with TLS root cert trust, but once that’s down; you’re golden.

ahoka5 hours ago

.internal works fine now.

stanfordkid6 hours ago

I don't fully understand how this works... who regulates and defines what is "self-hosted" or "ethical technology"... I feel you can't really solve the distributed consensus and governance problem by just introducing a new domain suffix.

sudonem5 hours ago

We should probably just bring back Geocities at this point.

IgorPartola5 hours ago

Neocities exists and you are welcome to it :)

koolala37 minutes ago

Their free terms are kind of bad. They use CORS security feature to block you from loading content from other sites. It doesn't cost them anything to let your site link outside content so they are only doing it make the free tier bad so people upgrade.

sudonem5 hours ago

TIL. Nice.

Terr_4 hours ago

Somewhat related, in case you missed it a few weeks ago, Oldavista (Altavista)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48447111

akerl_4 hours ago

What is the premise for being able to do "one person, one subdomain" that isn't a privacy/security nightmare?

foresto6 hours ago

What is the expected price range for registration and renewal under this TLD?

Will there be any assurance that renewal prices will remain fairly stable, rather than being significantly raised after customers grow attached to their domains (a practice that seems to be common with new gTLDs)?

LorenDB7 hours ago

Looks like we've hugged it to death.

HumanCCF7 hours ago

Indeed that appears to be so O_O. Our site is of course self-hosted, this is quite the response. Will have to troubleshoot what the bottleneck is!

red_hare7 hours ago

Apt for self-hosting

gorgmah7 hours ago

yes and it's not even on the front page yet lol

LorenDB7 hours ago

It's #10 on front page for me.

hananova6 hours ago

It simply cannot be both free and free choice of domain.

If it has both, it will be squatted to uselessness, and blocked everywhere because of phishing scams everywhere.

You can either make the domains cost money, which seems counter to the entire point, or disallow choosing the domain, instead handing out free what3words style names.

HumanCCF5 hours ago

We have considered this, all of these things will be examined during the evaluation process of the application with ICANN before any approval to operate the TLD is granted. We could also police our domain and revoke users who use it for abuse but that may be too costly. But you are right that fundamentally we must protect the reputation of the TLD at all costs and that will require imposing certain limits on its use.

applfanboysbgon5 hours ago

You should read their proposal. Specifically, the first "core feature": one person, one domain. If you want to squat on a domain, go for it -- it's yours, and that's the only domain you're getting.

I suppose this will be done by ID verification, which is a complete and total non-starter for me, but they do have a vision of some kind.

hananova5 hours ago

I've read it, I don't believe it will be effective, even with actual physical ID verification. Scammers can get more IDs, for example by way of scamming.

iamnothere6 hours ago

Better charge an arm and a leg for it, or people will complain that it’s too cheap and argue for blocking it everywhere.

artyom5 hours ago

The reason why this won't work is right there, in the original link itself.

They're allowing comments and obviously the first thing there is a scam.

No way any goodwill on the Internet is going to prosper. Not anymore.

HumanCCF3 hours ago

Scam comment deleted.

pylotlight1 hour ago

and yet 5 more popped up.

prepend4 hours ago

I tried to leave a comment and it errored out and said “please leave a valid email.” I tried 6 different addresses at prepend.com.

It’s weird when sites have invalid email checks.

2001zhaozhao2 hours ago

The $1/year numerical .xyz domain is pretty affordable already, and there are multiple providers now with free DNS services.

Grimblewald2 hours ago

In this econimy? where google's full might is behind killing self-hosting? Be still, my beating heart --- there may be hope yet.

functionmouse7 hours ago

.me is cooler, but...

That all the cool 2-letter TLDs are designated as country codes was an extraordinary mistake that will have unpredictable and devastating consequences long into the future.

HumanCCF7 hours ago

Our goal is for .self to be more than just another TLD string, we want to specifically empower the self-hosting use case with local clients that integrate directly with the TLD and operate shared services like mail servers as a public good. We want to dramatically simplify the effort it takes to set up a domain for homelabs and offer free services that are directly tied to the domain like email.

quotemstr7 hours ago

And you needed a gTLD for this task why?

HumanCCF6 hours ago

We don't necessarily, however there are many benefits for doing so. We could simply purchase a domain and then build our initiative beneath it but then everything we do would be beneath that domain, meaning there would be two dots in what is our effective TLD. That would also mean we are a bit beholden to whichever TLD we are beneath and also whichever registrar we purchased our domain from. With the services we hope to offer around things like TLS certs and emails, it just makes more sense for use to own the whole thing from the root.

+1
quotemstr6 hours ago
9dev7 hours ago

The only mistake was not opening the root namespace altogether. It’s just a money grab.

microgpt7 hours ago

The only mistake was not putting all US domains under .us, now the US has an an exorbitant privilege to print and enforce rules on new TLDs.

kmoser6 hours ago

What do you mean by "US domains?" Domains registered by US citizens? Hosted in the US (in which case does that include territories)? Regardless of the definition, I don't see an easy way to do this, nor a reason to, since domains can change hands (and hosts) across countries.

NewJazz5 hours ago

.edu and .gov are us-specific, not sure if that is what they are referring to.

+1
microgpt3 hours ago
dgellow6 hours ago

I mean, that wasn’t done by mistake

philipallstar6 hours ago

Sometimes hindsight is 1/20.

namegulf5 hours ago

That's a popular tld for 'me' domains, like you said it's closer to .self in meaning but has better appeal

However .me (https://namegulf.com/tld/cctld/me) is a ccTLD managed by the Government of Montenegro, they set their own rules

AlienRobot6 hours ago

I think letting anyone make any TLD is a bigger mistake.

.zip .pdf .mp3

I'd like to thank Caribbean island of Anguilla for having a ccTLD that helps identify which websites aren't worth your time in one quick look.

croes6 hours ago

How about .mine?

spooneybarger3 hours ago

I, as a human, find that website decidedly unfriendly to quickly getting information. Particularly on mobile.

robertlagrant6 hours ago

Will Self[0] is going to love this.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Self

pavel_lishin6 hours ago

> One Person, One Subdomain

> - Everyone entitled to a subdomain at no cost

One subdomain, or one subdomain? Would I be entitled to something like "pavel.hosts.self"?

internetter2 hours ago

a sub (level below) domain from a top level domain (.self) would presumably be pavel.self

Hugsbox6 hours ago

Seems like an idea that would be abused badly, quickly

LelouBil5 hours ago

Can someone explain how the "core features" would work ?

How/Why is this linked to a TLD and not a hosting provider ?

HumanCCF4 hours ago

The point is that you are your own hosting provider! We are trying to cater to self-hosters so our goal is to make it as easy as possible for someone with their own homelab to get a domain and have it pointed at the services they want to host.

cherryteastain6 hours ago

In practice sadly many of these more obscure TLDs seem to be more expensive than more 'normal' ones like .org

jdiff6 hours ago

Some of them, the more corporate or tech-focused ones like .ai or .inc or .tech or .llc. Very many of them are comparable within a dollar of .org.

ronbenton4 hours ago

Seems like a good way to get targeted by attackers

koolala5 hours ago

A free tunnel would be a dream. This would be a great initiative.

gpt56 hours ago

Feels like putting a flag on yourself that you are an easier target (security vulnerabilities, ddos, etc.)

senectus12 hours ago

I've been experimenting with using "mymobilenumber.xyz" for stuff thats specific to me. the domains are cheap and easy to remember.. in this day and age mobile numbers are not super secret anyway...

arjie6 hours ago

Just use cloudflare with static hosting for things like this. Doesn’t load for me.

HumanCCF6 hours ago

We did not expect this level of response, it should be reachable now.

PaulDavisThe1st6 hours ago

Seems that my.self is already taken. Moving right along, then ...

sikozu7 hours ago

Wanted to find out more but it looks to be down. Unfortunate.

anothereng4 hours ago

I think is a good goal to pursue.

Pxtl3 hours ago

If we're gonna futz around with self hosting tld stuff, can we get HTTP clients to allow self signing on dot local? It's my goddamned network stop warning me about my own servers and no I don't want to install new root certs I resent the need to do Deep Magic just to have a private NAS.

kylehotchkiss3 hours ago

Oh too bad will.i.am can’t spend $5,000,000 for a my.self domain :(

DonHopkins4 hours ago

SELF: The Power of Simplicity

DAVID UNGAR (ungar@self.stanford.edu)

Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 RANDALL B. SMITH† (rsmith@parc.xerox.com) Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, California 94304

Abstract. SELF is an object-oriented language for exploratory programming based on a small number of simple and concrete ideas: prototypes, slots, and behavior. Prototypes combine inheritance and instantiation to provide a framework that is simpler and more flexible than most object-oriented languages. Slots unite variables and procedures into a single construct. This permits the inheritance hierarchy to take over the function of lexical scoping in conventional languages. Finally, because SELF does not distinguish state from behavior, it narrows the gaps between ordinary objects, procedures, and closures. SELF’s simplicity and expressiveness offer new insights into objectoriented computation.

To thine own self be true. —William Shakespeare

https://bibliography.selflanguage.org/_static/self-power.pdf

mattrighetti6 hours ago

my.self is going to be sold for millions

byte_05 hours ago

mine.my.own.my.precious.self

fragmede5 hours ago

I've been looking to get into the TLD game. It's gonna cost about $600k, and it's a coin toss as to whether or not you'll get your money back. The two I've been eyeing, is .ion and .ness. Anyone want to go in on either of those with me?

greenavocado5 hours ago

I use netbird.io for my home lab and all my connected devices are reachable to each other without manual firewall hackery

comrade12347 hours ago

Good luck getting your outgoing emails accepted by Gmail and outlook.

HumanCCF6 hours ago

We plan to operate a shared mail server than can be used by users of the domain and we will work to ensure it is trusted by imposing usage limits. We will assume that every endpoint in our domain is someone's personal homelab, meaning small-scale use. For large mailing campaigns and newsletters there are plenty of services to choose from that enable those but for just sending personal emails, it should work.

quotemstr7 hours ago

ICANN and its consequences have been a disaster for the internet namespace.

type06 hours ago

I CANN, YOU CANN, Yes We CANN!

jklinger4106 hours ago

This is just a fact. It's a ponzi scheme.

jazzyjackson32 minutes ago

unless it's promising a return on investment funded by new entrants to the scheme it's not a ponzi. Managing TLDs is just a plain old service. If you want to set people up with a different solution to planting a flag in a global namespace you're free to do so (.eth was an interesting attempt) but you are competing with one hell of a 'network effect'

microgpt7 hours ago

I am disappointed that icannt.org is taken and is not an alternative root.

Edit: I've been rate limited because of this comment, apparently. Account burned - will make a new one. Dang says below it's because of flagged comments but I don't see many flagged comments in my history.

dang6 hours ago

Of course we wouldn't rate limit you, or anyone else, for an innocuous comment.

We rate limited you because of flamewar comments you posted in another thread, like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48723651. You posted over 50 times in that thread, and many of your comments there broke the site guidelines. That's abusive. If we didn't rate limit accounts for doing that, we might as well have no guidelines or restrictions at all.

4729367216 hours ago

[flagged]

dgellow6 hours ago

Wtf is wrong with you

283042834092345 hours ago

treat.yo.self!

dorianmariecom7 hours ago

it.self

TZubiri6 hours ago

>One domain per person

How will you ensure this?

hosel7 hours ago

gofuckyour.self

yamillove6 hours ago

lovethy.self

teach6 hours ago

tothineown.self/be/true

focusgroup07 hours ago

[dead]

CurbStomper2 hours ago

[dead]

axus7 hours ago

I've started using .internal

whartung7 hours ago

As I understand it, if you want to use domains internally for your home ("home") network, there's some DNS support for "home.arpa"[0].

0 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8375.html

mawise5 hours ago

I've been using .lan, referenced in rfc6762[1] as a good alternative to the multicast .local

> We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the following top-level domains have been used on private internal networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for this purpose:

      .intranet.
      .internal.
      .private.
      .corp.
      .home.
      .lan.

[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6762
mkl7 hours ago

That's no use for self-hosting unless all your users are on your private network.

warpech6 hours ago

Tailnet and Magic DNS make it easy to bring other people or devices to your network, including simple authentication mechanisms to know who is who

mkl2 hours ago

That doesn't contradict anything I said. Private networks can be huge, e.g. in big companies, and they can still use .internal. .internal serves quite a different purpose to that proposed for .self, so the top level comment I replied to doesn't make much sense.

Diti6 hours ago

A VPN is literally a… (Very) Private Network.

furyofantares4 hours ago

Virtual, not Very