Move off to new domain is not owned by Noisebridge.

It will never get easier than “right now” to move from to a new domain.

As each piece of new information is added to , moving domains becomes more difficult.

  1. A new domain: <insert domain> will be purchased and owned by noisebridge.
  2. An email account needs to be associated with noisebridge for domain ownership. <account>@<provider>.<tld>
    1. This account should not be associated with ** , though temporary association during the transition is OK.
    2. This account should be some kind of generic external account with a password / recovery credentials distributed, perhaps using Shamir's Secret Sharing or similar.
  3. A migration strategy is required:
    1. A long period of time will be required to fully migrate
    2. All incoming emails to all aliases require changing
    3. contact information for all critical and important accounts need updating
    4. email dependent architecture like the lists require updating
  4. aliases and forwarding from the old domain can sit in place until such a time that domain no longer works.

I’m pro movement. Where are we going?
I see we are hosted on now.
Als, is available! as is
Wow, there are a lot of tld’s!

IDK if any are better than info but maybe we should pick some of these up too?

1 Like

Do we have a list of what might break when we change domains? Off the top of my head: PayPal, users out of the loop, a billion absolute URLs on the wiki, probably all the QR codes in the space that nobody uses, Phong, our e-mail spam reputation.

I bet if we went into and looked at the mail daemon logs we could get a good indication of what currently goes through that domain. And if we don’t log, we should turn on minimal logging for a few weeks to make sure.

(btw I love the Consensus Items category)

1 Like

Yeah a lot needs to be gathered. I expect the planning to take a couple months. but, as long as we still can access, redirects and forwarding can help find what we miss. this is a good thing.

This will probably stay a draft as the plan is built. I’ll bring it up for discussion at meetings.


Any updates?

I’ve been too drained from other issues to deal with all this fun stuff. I will get back on it next week at the latest.

Just dropping in to suggest as an option. :slight_smile:


Here’s my startup pitch:


I’m versed in the paltry craft of mysql search and replace.

I have the domain

I prefer although it does prescribe a use, which I don’t think is ideal.

1 Like

What’s the story on not being owned by Noisebridge?

There’s over 10 years of organic SEO linking Noisebridge and That’s going to be a lot of work to rebuild.

1 Like is owned by an ex-communicated founder who is a piece of shit. we have an auto-updater for the zone file but not access to the controlling account.

SEO isn’t really how NB makes…anything. besides the laser training manual. That has some massive google juice for some reason.

besides if we use redirects it will be fine. the point is to remove dependency. keeping redirects at will keep SEO from what I understand.

the point is to gain full control and no longer associate with a terrible person, and SEO really doesn’t matter.

3 Likes is likely available assuming Georgia doesn’t become Russia in the near future

1 Like

What would it take to get this person to transfer the .net and .org to Noisebridge? There’s 10 years of the internet thinking Noisebridge is at Decamping to some off-brand TLD, while leaving those domains in the control of an unaffiliated person, and hoping that the links and search results that help people find NB don’t break or get plain hijacked or sold, is not a great solution.


If I were to guess, revoking this statement:

So, basically, nothing.

1 Like

Sure it is, you’re just looking at the wrong outcomes. It achieves the goal of being out from under the thumb of a shit bag. Don’t look at it in any other context. There are theoretically other solutions like get the account with the domain, but those have not worked.

SEO just doesn’t matter to Noisebridge. I’ve never heard anyone bring it up before you, and even in this context no one else is bringing it up. I’m not saying you are wrong to do so, it’s a valid point to make, it’s just not a goal.

I never promised this would not break external links, I dont think anyone is under that impression. And please note we’re all highly technical here, you’re kind of putting forth statements that are obvious, no one here is under the impression that this major change will be without issue. It just has to get done at some point and there will never be a better point than right now.

And even if the changes are not implemented, Investigating the required changes and getting ready to implement them is work that needs to be done. Might as well start now. If you want to collect external sites which would need to be updated that would certainly help.

1 Like

I’m submitting for consideration the value of that built-up SEO is likely nonzero. I am also a highly technical person, and I didn’t find out about NB through organic means, I found it through the 'net. In any case, unless you or someone else has taken up a study of how people come and contribute to NB, I think “we don’t know if SEO matters to Noisebridge” is safer to say than “SEO just doesn’t matter to Noisebridge”.

I don’t have context on this person, but it’s not uncommon for this situation to happen in business - that a founder leaves on less-than-great terms and has some overhanging interest or claim, and usually that gets resolved by the other principals holding their noses and dealing with the person with a formal settlement that prevents future surprises, because surprises suck.

That’s my suggestion here: consider how other organizations or companies would deal with the same problem. Sometimes the best way around is through, especially when it comes with guarantees the question is truly and finally closed. With that, I’m not a voting member so I will excuse myself from the conversation.


Nobody’s a voting member. Your input carries the same weight as anyone else.


I’m not a voting member either, I’m just some yahoo.

I dont think you should recuse yourself, i just think we are at an impasse with the current set of information. My point about the value of SEO is that no one else is valuing it high, and that 301’s handle most of it until .net disappears.

Plus we’re not going to shut down .net, we’re just getting ready for it to be shut down. We don’t have to move until it’s an issue so no 301s needed, but that would be my personal preference so we can work out any migration issues. And we would keep .net in place as long as possible regardless if it’s 301s or not.

This person can make us vanish and we wouldn’t even have an email list, which is probably the most prolific form of contact. We’d disappear. (Well, we have meetup, here, and slack.) this is even worse than 301s.

1 Like

Noted, thanks. In that case, do we have someone, preferably a lawyer, but whatever, who can draft a letter to Jacob that goes like this:

Dear Mr Appelbaum,

I am ___, representing the board of Noisebridge, a hackerspace in San Francisco, California. It is our understanding that Mr Appelbaum is in control and possession of the domain name, which is the property of Noisebridge. Mr Appelbaum is not associated with Noisebridge (see attached statement etc.). As such the board requires Mr Appelbaum to return control of the above domain names to a representative of the board immediately. Please reply with an affirmation, or explain if this information is in error or why this transfer cannot be done at this time.

(Doing my best to impersonate a lawyer writing a demand letter.) Best case he just returns them after realizing he’s still paying for them. Though he might want us to pay him in which case NB negotiates a settlement and weighs it against going its own way with another TLD. I believe some reasonable attempt should be made to recover the domains.

1 Like

Such attempts have been made, is my understanding. Appelbaum is impervious to legal threats from Noisebridge to recover the domain, given that they live in Berlin and any expenses incurred in taking legal action as suggested would be substantial. International lawsuits aren’t cheap.

We could absolutely send them a stern letter demanding the domain back. They could also in response, immediately delete the domain and send us into chaos.

In fact, we don’t need a lawsuit for this at all. ICANN has a process for this called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. It starts by contacting (the registrar) and explaining that we want our domain back. I don’t know if anyone tried that route yet, since it is a whole bunch of hassle and legwork and whatnot, and would involve directly interacting with the domain owner at some point.

Anyways, I just sent an email off to Gandi’s abuse department because why the fuck not. If Jake loses their shit and deletes the domain and fucks us over, better right now while Gandi is watching rather than in some indeterminate future.