Government URLs that don't end in .gov(github.com)
github.com
Government URLs that don't end in .gov
https://github.com/GSA/govt-urls
201 comments
My guess is that it’s because the US built the thing, they decided .gov was to be for US Government sites. Then when other countries joined they got their own TLDs, which they added a .gov.<tld> to for their own purposes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov (Which seems to make my guess right, .gov is operated by the US Government)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov (Which seems to make my guess right, .gov is operated by the US Government)
Right, I assumed it was the same principle by which UK, having issued the first postage stamps, is the only country that doesn't say the country name on the stamp.
That was introduced in 1985, almost 40 years ago.
For how many decades is this going to be a reasonable argument?
In 100 years, will it still be reasonable for the USA to say "we built the thing, so it is appropriate for us to continue to be the default country in domain names. The rest of you must use your ccTLDs, but we remain special."
In 200 years?
The only non-pathetic option is for the United States to transition to using its .us ccTLD for governmental and military domains in particular, with .edu and probably some others not far behind. The only question is how gradual the process is, and when it starts.
For how many decades is this going to be a reasonable argument?
In 100 years, will it still be reasonable for the USA to say "we built the thing, so it is appropriate for us to continue to be the default country in domain names. The rest of you must use your ccTLDs, but we remain special."
In 200 years?
The only non-pathetic option is for the United States to transition to using its .us ccTLD for governmental and military domains in particular, with .edu and probably some others not far behind. The only question is how gradual the process is, and when it starts.
Country calling codes date from the 60s and yet the US (and Canada?) are still +1.
The real answer is that it’s way too much work to change now for essentially no benefit, so it will probably continue indefinitely unless a new system supplants the current internet.
The real answer is that it’s way too much work to change now for essentially no benefit, so it will probably continue indefinitely unless a new system supplants the current internet.
That's silly; registering new domain names and putting redirects in place is much simpler than changing a freakin' country code.
> That's silly; registering new domain names and putting redirects in place is much simpler than changing a freakin' country code.
Cool, here's a $50,000 firm fixed contract for you to go fix all the hardcoded .gov references in every single federal website, knowing how many of them will fail to handle redirects gracefully.
Cool, here's a $50,000 firm fixed contract for you to go fix all the hardcoded .gov references in every single federal website, knowing how many of them will fail to handle redirects gracefully.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why is the change needed?
Here’s the reasonable argument: US citizens are now used to .gov domain names being solely used by US government entities. They won’t change it, nor should they, as forcing domain name changes will simply add confusion for Americans.
Just because you don’t like that the US government has first mover advantage isn’t a good reason to change this.
Just because you don’t like that the US government has first mover advantage isn’t a good reason to change this.
I don't really think this is much of an issue. It's not like the change would happen immediately. Each .gov website is likely run by different agencies, so they wouldn't end up switching all at the same time.
It's a pretty simple matter to register a corresponding .gov.us domain for each existing .gov domain. Then each .gov domain owner would have to configure their web server properly, and can phase in a redirect from the old .gov to the new .gov.us.
Prior to this happening, the .gov site could have a big banner across the top of the page informing visitors of the change. This could remain for as long as seems reasonable before changing, even multiple years.
> Just because you don’t like that the US government has first mover advantage isn’t a good reason to change this.
As an American, I think the current setup with .gov (and .mil) is super weird. The fact that there are so many US government websites that are under .com, .org, and even .us, is weird too. The US shouldn't hold any kind of privileged place when it comes to TLDs; it's clearer for everyone concerned -- including Americans -- to put all these under .gov.us.
It's a pretty simple matter to register a corresponding .gov.us domain for each existing .gov domain. Then each .gov domain owner would have to configure their web server properly, and can phase in a redirect from the old .gov to the new .gov.us.
Prior to this happening, the .gov site could have a big banner across the top of the page informing visitors of the change. This could remain for as long as seems reasonable before changing, even multiple years.
> Just because you don’t like that the US government has first mover advantage isn’t a good reason to change this.
As an American, I think the current setup with .gov (and .mil) is super weird. The fact that there are so many US government websites that are under .com, .org, and even .us, is weird too. The US shouldn't hold any kind of privileged place when it comes to TLDs; it's clearer for everyone concerned -- including Americans -- to put all these under .gov.us.
MS still hasn't gotten all of their users to transition to outlook.com in order to be rid of hotmail.com, which they bought in 1997.
Do you have the US Government doing it quicker? The only way it ever occurs is if they effectively CNAME .gov to .gov.us to run them both side-by-side.
Do you have the US Government doing it quicker? The only way it ever occurs is if they effectively CNAME .gov to .gov.us to run them both side-by-side.
Sunsetting a TLD to prove a point sounds really silly.
[deleted]
The redirects are fine but probably take effort depending on how those backends work. They also need to be permanent to avoid link rot.
Edit: I’ve been in stacks of microservices for a while, and it just occurred to me that I’m not sure how cookies can be migrated between domains.
Edit: I’ve been in stacks of microservices for a while, and it just occurred to me that I’m not sure how cookies can be migrated between domains.
Until a country decides to use its own dns root. Then another. Then another.
Why do you think other government/country want to use an English abbreviation for their government entities ? Even for Latin language that use a similar word "gouv" (french), "gob" (spanish) or "guv" (romanian) would be more natural.
Various government departments of those countries use domains under .gouv.fr, .gob.es, .gov.ro respectively. The argument is that fairness and clarity would suggest that the US likewise use .gov.us or some other convention of their choice under .us.
dQw4w9WgXcQ(1)
.com and .net and .org are only "internationally available" because the registrars didn't care to restrict them (IIRC, one of them was moderately restrictive in the beginning, perhaps .org requiring an actual organization of some sort).
.mil is also US only.
The real hotness is to host on .arpa - https://blog.fhrnet.eu/2019/03/13/fun-with-arpa-domains/
.mil is also US only.
The real hotness is to host on .arpa - https://blog.fhrnet.eu/2019/03/13/fun-with-arpa-domains/
The TLD .org was originally for non-profits, to distinguish them from the for-profit companies found over at the .com TLD. In the beginning, you had to prove nonprofit status to get a .org domain.
That’s no longer required, but still there was a big fight a few years ago when the .org registrar was set to be sold to a private equity firm. It’s the TLD of choice for nonprofits, as an echo of that early restriction.
That’s no longer required, but still there was a big fight a few years ago when the .org registrar was set to be sold to a private equity firm. It’s the TLD of choice for nonprofits, as an echo of that early restriction.
The UK doesn't put the country of origin on their postage stamps, because they invented them [1], so there were no ambiguities to lift.
That's the same reason the US is +1 country code and holds .gov
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamps_and_postal_hist...
That's the same reason the US is +1 country code and holds .gov
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamps_and_postal_hist...
Also the same reason, I guess, English-speaking countries have 0 and 1 as country codes in ISBN numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISBN_registration_grou...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISBN_registration_grou...
There was an interesting use case for the early zero language code. It allowed the checksum to remain intact when switching from early SBN to ISBN, all you had to do was prefix with zero. It isn't quite so simple today, if you find an old British book you can't simply tack a zero on the front.
It is mentioned in the Wikipedia link, but buried a little. I realise ISBN history is the epitome of super-nerdy, but the evolution path from $just_some_retailer through to the Bookland "country" is really quite interesting from an interoperability perspective.
It is mentioned in the Wikipedia link, but buried a little. I realise ISBN history is the epitome of super-nerdy, but the evolution path from $just_some_retailer through to the Bookland "country" is really quite interesting from an interoperability perspective.
.gov is managed by the US government in the exact way you describe. There is nothing "inherently international" about it. It isn't meant for anyone outside of US government agencies.
Let's be specific though: .gov is available for any government within these United States, whether it be federal, state, local municipality, territorial, or tribal government. In fact, all major cities I just spot-checked have .gov domains. I wonder how many are clinging to <city>.<state>.us? At least as a CNAME? ...none of those which I just spot-checked.
Plenty of exceptions abound, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov#Use
Plenty of exceptions abound, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov#Use
I remember back in the day when the highschool website & email was: school.district.k12.ca.us . Basically no one uses those because they were too long and hard to remember. My old school district doesn't use the higher level, the school doesn't use the full name. In fact, they don't even resolve in DNS anymore. Some districts now have the schools under their new domain, some schools do their own thing.
I never had a problem remembering such domains, because I found them logical. In fact, in 1996, I registered such a domain that was <street address>.<city>.<state>.us. I figured this was the most accessible one for all four of our roommates to use, and there was no cost at the time.
Come to find out that the k12.ca.us. domain is completely defunct! There is no SOA for it, and WHOIS indicates it's inactive. k12.ny.us. seems to be in the same condition. However, there are still k12.<state>.us. domains in other parts of these USA. If you search for them, you can find websites and email addresses under that hierarchy.
Come to find out that the k12.ca.us. domain is completely defunct! There is no SOA for it, and WHOIS indicates it's inactive. k12.ny.us. seems to be in the same condition. However, there are still k12.<state>.us. domains in other parts of these USA. If you search for them, you can find websites and email addresses under that hierarchy.
There are still plenty of subdomains, for example, https://www.cnusd.k12.ca.us/
Huh, same! I remember the changeover happened sometime around fifth grade, so 2011-12 for our district? (Strangely enough our school's wifi used WEP until 2014ish. I remember the password was obviously contrived to the right length)
The MBTA (transit authority) in MA in the US uses .com. (MA state government seemingly still uses .ma.us as well. And town.ma.us seems pretty standard in MA at least based on my town.
What are the chances that Art Spiegelman could register a clever "ma.us" domain?
Isn't it just that .gov is the US one? Like .com vs. .co.uk (though since it's not actually important that's blurred) or .org vs. .org.uk.
Or .edu vs. .ac.uk; .mil vs. .mod.uk.
They got there first and just spread over TLDs before consigning other nations to fit under one I suppose.
Or .edu vs. .ac.uk; .mil vs. .mod.uk.
They got there first and just spread over TLDs before consigning other nations to fit under one I suppose.
.com, .org and nearly all original TLDs are used internationally, though there are also local derivatives like co.uk. Even .edu used to be available internationally. I suppose most people have realized by now that .gov is strictly US, but it's not like that was obvious from the naming scheme alone.
I was under the impression that the US government controls / owns .gov
Yes exactly. So there's no need to use gov.us, but there isn't a 'ukgov' TLD, so gov.uk makes sense.
Yes, exactly. .gov is US-specific and controlled by the US government.
That's settled, we're even.
> Why doesn't the United Kingdom have the name of the country on its stamps?
> Because the United Kingdom had the privilege of being the first country in the world to introduce postage stamps, meaning that they did not need to be identified as coming from that country, especially when used domestically.
> Why doesn't the United Kingdom have the name of the country on its stamps?
> Because the United Kingdom had the privilege of being the first country in the world to introduce postage stamps, meaning that they did not need to be identified as coming from that country, especially when used domestically.
> it's under a cctld that clearly affiliated to and managed by that government.
Maybe this is my latent American nationalism showing, but isn't .gov "clearly affiliated to and managed by" the US government?
I think this bit was added as an edit or maybe I just missed it:
> an inherently international .gov domain
.gov is not inherently international for all the reasons in this subthread (and probably others as well)
Maybe this is my latent American nationalism showing, but isn't .gov "clearly affiliated to and managed by" the US government?
I think this bit was added as an edit or maybe I just missed it:
> an inherently international .gov domain
.gov is not inherently international for all the reasons in this subthread (and probably others as well)
I don't think thats clear at all. We have three people in this thread already confused on the issue.
I think the poster wasn't talking of the US government but of knowing which government a domain is related to by just looking at it. ".gov" is not clear while ".gov.uk" is clear due to the ccTLD.
> but isn't .gov "clearly affiliated to and managed by" the US government
I would say no. What makes it clear to you?
I think the poster wasn't talking of the US government but of knowing which government a domain is related to by just looking at it. ".gov" is not clear while ".gov.uk" is clear due to the ccTLD.
> but isn't .gov "clearly affiliated to and managed by" the US government
I would say no. What makes it clear to you?
Honestly, I don't believe that anyone is truly "confused" about the source of a .gov website, especially folks who are reading HN on a weekend. They might view it as arbitrary (it's not, really) but it's certainly not a "oh man I just don't understand how this could be the case" level of confusion.
I won't go so far as to say that the internet is an American invention but it was certainly primarily American in origin. .gov has been managed by the US government since the beginning.
I won't go so far as to say that the internet is an American invention but it was certainly primarily American in origin. .gov has been managed by the US government since the beginning.
> What makes it clear to you?
Not the OP, but also American. For me it's clear because I've never seen a US government site on a non-.gov domain (though apparently some obscure ones exist as this submission points out), nor have I ever seen a non-US-government site on .gov.
Not the OP, but also American. For me it's clear because I've never seen a US government site on a non-.gov domain (though apparently some obscure ones exist as this submission points out), nor have I ever seen a non-US-government site on .gov.
> some obscure ones exist
The submission includes over 400 domains for the federal only list. That is more than "some obscure ones"
> nor have I ever seen a non-US-government site on .gov
How often are you going to non-US-government government sites? Being an American I could imagine you hardly if ever interact with any other government sites so maybe that could be attributed to selection bias.
The submission includes over 400 domains for the federal only list. That is more than "some obscure ones"
> nor have I ever seen a non-US-government site on .gov
How often are you going to non-US-government government sites? Being an American I could imagine you hardly if ever interact with any other government sites so maybe that could be attributed to selection bias.
> The submission includes over 400 domains for the federal only list. That is more than "some obscure ones"
The number has nothing to do with how obscure they are.
> Being an American I could imagine you hardly if ever interact with any other government sites
I have interacted with them many times. (1) to fill out various Covid-related entry forms when those were widely required, (2) to apply for visas, (3) purely out of curiosity (e.g. I’m sometimes curious what travel warnings/advisories other countries’ foreign ministries put out and how they compare with our own).
The number has nothing to do with how obscure they are.
> Being an American I could imagine you hardly if ever interact with any other government sites
I have interacted with them many times. (1) to fill out various Covid-related entry forms when those were widely required, (2) to apply for visas, (3) purely out of curiosity (e.g. I’m sometimes curious what travel warnings/advisories other countries’ foreign ministries put out and how they compare with our own).
I go to foreign gov sites just as frequently as US ones because I travel internationally.
I suspect it depends on whether you know your early Internet history. The Internet was a US research and military project at first. It was US-centric for a long time. The original top level domains are all US-centric. Walmart.ca is Walmart Canada. Walmart.com is Walmart America. Similarly, .mil, .edu are for the US military and American universities. .gov fits into that scheme and if you know the rest it would follow that it's for the US gov.
All the documentation is very clear and the behavior is consistent. It’s sub optimal for countries utilizing a .gov.{country code} scheme, but it would be extremely expensive to change. Many non English speaking countries use a different abbreviation for their word for government, so it’s hard to argue that the status quo has to change to benefit “everyone.”
The us also has .mil locked up for mostly purposes.
The us also has .mil locked up for mostly purposes.
> What makes it clear to you?
Load any name on the TLD, lol, what?
I understand the point you're arguing for, and mostly agree!, but the end-around is...weird.
Load any name on the TLD, lol, what?
I understand the point you're arguing for, and mostly agree!, but the end-around is...weird.
> I'm sure there are oversights on who can acquire an inherently international .gov domain,
There's .INT if you have a use for one.
> turns out .gov is exclusively for the US, not sure I feel good about that, particularly as .com and .net are very much not just for the US.
This goes back to when the DNS was designed in the late 70s. Things were different back then (remember the big-endian british addresses, gb.corp.foo IIRC).
And I see you haven't learnt about .MIL yet either...
There's .INT if you have a use for one.
> turns out .gov is exclusively for the US, not sure I feel good about that, particularly as .com and .net are very much not just for the US.
This goes back to when the DNS was designed in the late 70s. Things were different back then (remember the big-endian british addresses, gb.corp.foo IIRC).
And I see you haven't learnt about .MIL yet either...
[deleted]
Fun fact: I briefly had a .gov domain in the early 90s through internic until they figured out I was not a government agency
"turns out .gov is exclusively for the US, not sure I feel good about that, particularly as .com and .net are very much not just for the US.
I get it, you invented the internet, but the special status you have over it is a little frustrating."
I bet America having +1 as our country code bothers you too :P
America numba 1! /S
I get it, you invented the internet, but the special status you have over it is a little frustrating."
I bet America having +1 as our country code bothers you too :P
America numba 1! /S
Hate to break it to you, but Canada uses +1 as well[0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Canada
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Canada
That's because the Canadians haven't accepted the fact that their provinces are just new states waiting for annexation.
Even in France most government websites use ".gouv.fr" (gouv is short for gouvernement, aka government).
Even if it's not exactly ".gov" they still mimicked it.
Even if it's not exactly ".gov" they still mimicked it.
Much like the gouv.qc.ca suffix.
>>I get it, you invented the internet, but the special status you have over it is a little frustrating.
america music intensifies
america music intensifies
This got me thinking about cookie scope, and I have a feeling that domaina.tld. and domainb.tld. is always safer than domaina.gov.tl. and domainb.gov.tld.
I might be way off here, but I think that means either domain could set a gov.tld cookie which is sent to all domains, and if one of them is reading cookies without checking scope it could be a way to send whatever to another server. Or even worse, if one of the sites is using gov.uk cookies for something sensitive, then any of the others could read it.
Does anyone know if browsers have special cookie scope considerations for things like .gov.uk and .co.uk?
I might be way off here, but I think that means either domain could set a gov.tld cookie which is sent to all domains, and if one of them is reading cookies without checking scope it could be a way to send whatever to another server. Or even worse, if one of the sites is using gov.uk cookies for something sensitive, then any of the others could read it.
Does anyone know if browsers have special cookie scope considerations for things like .gov.uk and .co.uk?
Browsers use the public suffix list to determine cookie scope. So .co.uk domains are just as isolated from each other as .com domains.
You can even get your own domains added to it, typically because you allow users to host their own content on a subdomain (like github.io for github pages).
https://publicsuffix.org/
You can even get your own domains added to it, typically because you allow users to host their own content on a subdomain (like github.io for github pages).
https://publicsuffix.org/
[deleted]
[deleted]
Interestingly, .edu is mostly only for US universities, but there are a bunch of exceptions. Basically, there used to be several "generic TLDs"[1] in addition to the "country code TLDs" (of which ".su" for Soviet Union still exists), but they mostly got converted into sponsored TLDs.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
[deleted]
Do .gov's have to be renewed every year with ICANN?
What if a dept lets theirs lapse and some squatter swoops in and takes it?
We'll start the bidding at $1B USD...
What if a dept lets theirs lapse and some squatter swoops in and takes it?
We'll start the bidding at $1B USD...
the gov TLD is managed by the US government. It's very rare that you renew anything with ICANN, since you're almost always going at least to the entity that manages a TLD (unless you run a TLD, then I guess there'd be an ICANN fee).
If you have a .com domain, you're renewing with VeriSign, the company that owns the com TLD.
If you have a .com domain, you're renewing with VeriSign, the company that owns the com TLD.
Currently, the .gov sTLD is administered by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
I'll pay for the domain if you find a way to buy a .gov as easily as you can buy a .com. I don't even think a regular citizen can get a .gov unless you incorporate a new city or something like that.
During the government shutdown some TLS certificates expired, so depending how long it goes a domain renewal could get missed because nobody is working or the check bounces.
You’re confusing TLDs and domain names.
ICANN has lots of rules around TLD assignment, so squatting .gov doesn't seem possible. But some have recurring cost. Here's gTLDs:
> a fixed fee of US$6,250 per calendar quarter; (b) and a transaction fee of US$0.25. [1]
.gov is not a gTLD, I'm not sure what financial relationship exists, if any.
[1] https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/global-support/faqs...
> a fixed fee of US$6,250 per calendar quarter; (b) and a transaction fee of US$0.25. [1]
.gov is not a gTLD, I'm not sure what financial relationship exists, if any.
[1] https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/global-support/faqs...
.mil too
I went through the process of registering a .gov domain recently and it definitely takes a couple of months. It requires a letter of intent, wet signatures from elected official(s) on official letterhead, a phone call to a publicly listed number of an elected official, 2FA enrollment for the management of DNS/WHOIS, and a period of time in between some of these steps for some behind-the-scenes verification to take place. Despite the many steps, I did find it relatively straightforward and appropriate given the exclusivity of the TLD. In fact, the most difficult part (that I'm still working through) is convincing management that we should make the full migration to the .gov now that we have it registered...
What type of organization are you operating where you'd need a .gov? Is this a government organization (like a local government or city hall)? Or is it possible for even random non-government related non-profits to have legitimate uses for .govs?
Edit: I was mostly commenting on this.
> In fact, the most difficult part is convincing management that we should make the full migration to the .gov
It sounds like the most difficult part of getting a .gov is having a legitimate government entity and having a purpose that needs one.
Edit: I was mostly commenting on this.
> In fact, the most difficult part is convincing management that we should make the full migration to the .gov
It sounds like the most difficult part of getting a .gov is having a legitimate government entity and having a purpose that needs one.
Eligibility requirements are here [0]. You have to be connected to a government entity, no private nonprofits are eligible.
[0] https://get.gov/registration/requirements/#eligibility
[0] https://get.gov/registration/requirements/#eligibility
You must be an official government entity at a local, state, or federal level. This can include cities, counties, special districts, joint power authorities, state offices, etc.
I would hope that random "non-government related non-profits" aren't using .gov domains. Isn't the whole point of the domain that it's just for government entities?
even usps.gov just redirects to usps.com which I feel is a bit of a loss.
Lots of small towns have dot coms when they could have dot gov.
Lots of small towns have dot coms when they could have dot gov.
USPS is (since 1970) an Independent Agency rather than an agency of the executive branch. This was sort of a semi-privatization measure that isolates USPS from the federal government, USPS operates mostly as a government-owned independent corporation. There are a number of other independent agencies as well, they way they relate to .gov domains varies. I don't think there's a well-settled policy on whether independent agencies should use .gov domains. Amtrak doesn't, the CIA does, NCUA does, Federal Reserve mostly doesn't (except the board which is a federal agency). I think it depends mostly on brand identity and how much they want to be perceived as private sector vs. government agencies, since independent agencies often straddle a line between the two.
It does feel like the redirect should go the other way around.
Even weirder, https://anpost.ie redirects to https://www.anpost.com/
So apparently the Irish Post Office wants to be seen as an international player?
So apparently the Irish Post Office wants to be seen as an international player?
Briefly scrolling through the the list for really weird ones and “ war-on-pineapple.com” jumped out at me.
Turns out it’s not a USDA campaign, but is associated with a CISA campaign to explain foreign influence operations focused on divisiveness.
CISA produced a quite good one pager: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_100...
Sadly the domain is inactive, but they helpfully included an archive.org to show some of the additional content (how the CISA director executed a pineapple op on Twitter): https://web.archive.org/web/20190726194709/https:/twitter.co...
And for the record- pepperoni pineapple jalapeño pizza is delicious.
Turns out it’s not a USDA campaign, but is associated with a CISA campaign to explain foreign influence operations focused on divisiveness.
CISA produced a quite good one pager: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_100...
Sadly the domain is inactive, but they helpfully included an archive.org to show some of the additional content (how the CISA director executed a pineapple op on Twitter): https://web.archive.org/web/20190726194709/https:/twitter.co...
And for the record- pepperoni pineapple jalapeño pizza is delicious.
Interesting related thing from India: the official TLDs as per the guidelines are .gov.in and .nic.in, and both are registered as a public suffix (legacy, from when the list was created).
However the government created a separate Section 8 company called Digital India corporation that runs a separate group of websites for Citizen Outreach called MyGov, which runs a separate subdomain for these: mygov.in. Unfortunately, they haven’t gotten around to registering it as a public suffix, so there are concerns around security (cookies are shared between completely separate sites). The public suffix list doesn’t accept contributions without authorisation anymore, so it’s unlikely to be fixed.
There’s also the interesting case of some government sites preferring .org.in to showcase independence from government interference- RBI, for eg (the central bank) runs at rbi.org.in.
I wrote a few more findings when I created a list back in 2020: https://twitter.com/captn3m0/status/1301613472615030784
However the government created a separate Section 8 company called Digital India corporation that runs a separate group of websites for Citizen Outreach called MyGov, which runs a separate subdomain for these: mygov.in. Unfortunately, they haven’t gotten around to registering it as a public suffix, so there are concerns around security (cookies are shared between completely separate sites). The public suffix list doesn’t accept contributions without authorisation anymore, so it’s unlikely to be fixed.
There’s also the interesting case of some government sites preferring .org.in to showcase independence from government interference- RBI, for eg (the central bank) runs at rbi.org.in.
I wrote a few more findings when I created a list back in 2020: https://twitter.com/captn3m0/status/1301613472615030784
I'm seeing only the one tweet, not the intended thread. Is this another artefact of Twitter being broken?
Twitter no longer seems to render threads without login
We need a government root CA more than a government TLD. Domain names aren't even the only thing we should attest.
This sounds like a decent idea until you realize that means one of two options:
- A US Government controlled CA root preinstalled on computers. Privacy advocates would be in arms. - Constant untrusted CA warnings when trying to access any government site.
- A US Government controlled CA root preinstalled on computers. Privacy advocates would be in arms. - Constant untrusted CA warnings when trying to access any government site.
Root CAs can be configured to only attest certain TLDs (in this case .gov) via X509v3 Name Constraint.
This is how dn42 does it: https://dn42.dev/services/Certificate-Authority.md
This is how dn42 does it: https://dn42.dev/services/Certificate-Authority.md
The pentagon takes approach 2. Most people never need to access a .mil anyways, but if you need to work with their office (I had a dealership leasing cars to them needing to use a web portal) then you have to install their cert bundle.
I am unfortunately aware. To make matters worse, the preferred install mechanism is a .exe that adds all of the opaquely named DOD CAs to your machine.
Regardless, this puts you back at a US Government controlled CA being on your machine.
Regardless, this puts you back at a US Government controlled CA being on your machine.
You might not be up to date, you are now able to run the executable without admin privileges to do a local user only installation.
Have you seen the state of the root ca bundle? As far as I can tell it has every national CA except the US.
Do you really trust the turkish government with the ability to sign for any domain.
Some days I consider tearing out the whole thing and rebuilding with the 3 CA's I actually care about. but then I usually give up as too much hassle.
Do you really trust the turkish government with the ability to sign for any domain.
Some days I consider tearing out the whole thing and rebuilding with the 3 CA's I actually care about. but then I usually give up as too much hassle.
> As far as I can tell it has every national CA except the US.
Annoyingly, it doesn't have my country's national CA hierarchy (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438825).
Why is it annoying? Because it means you have to add it manually, and manually added root certificates have more power than the root certificates that come with the browser! In particular, they can bypass HPKP (security.cert_pinning.enforcement_level defaults to 1).
Annoyingly, it doesn't have my country's national CA hierarchy (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438825).
Why is it annoying? Because it means you have to add it manually, and manually added root certificates have more power than the root certificates that come with the browser! In particular, they can bypass HPKP (security.cert_pinning.enforcement_level defaults to 1).
> Do you really trust the turkish government with the ability to sign for any domain.
No, but I don’t have to. To be included in the root CA list, they have to participate in cert transparency logging. So I can just pick a log to monitor, and check to make sure they haven’t issued a cert for one of my domains.
No, but I don’t have to. To be included in the root CA list, they have to participate in cert transparency logging. So I can just pick a log to monitor, and check to make sure they haven’t issued a cert for one of my domains.
So you don't trust them to not issue an unexpected cert but you do trust them to always log it?
edit: I just read the spec. the cert needs to be logged to be considered valid by the browser. which has fun connotations where google is effectively monitoring everything you access. basically the mother of all analytics. well... I mean... that is.. if they were not already monitoring everything you do on the web. so it's ok I guess.
edit: I just read the spec. the cert needs to be logged to be considered valid by the browser. which has fun connotations where google is effectively monitoring everything you access. basically the mother of all analytics. well... I mean... that is.. if they were not already monitoring everything you do on the web. so it's ok I guess.
What exactly are you (or they) afraid of? NSA/FBI/CIA/DHS/etc impersonating other sites using the government CA?
Before Certificate Transparency, I'm pretty sure they already could do that relatively easily by forcing a private CA to make them a cert. (National Security Letters and all that fun)
Even now, with CT, I think they'd be more inclined to use a private or at least an "unofficial" CA, instead of basically leaving "your's truly, The Government" in the CT log. If you already know you'll leave a trace, why would you want to make that trace extra obvious?
Before Certificate Transparency, I'm pretty sure they already could do that relatively easily by forcing a private CA to make them a cert. (National Security Letters and all that fun)
Even now, with CT, I think they'd be more inclined to use a private or at least an "unofficial" CA, instead of basically leaving "your's truly, The Government" in the CT log. If you already know you'll leave a trace, why would you want to make that trace extra obvious?
Brazil had trouble somewhat like that. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438825
[deleted]
Does our CA/browser infrastructure prevent the government from registering a trusted .gov CA instead of a trusted root CA?
NameConstraints seem to be well supported now, although the farther away from browsers you go, the harder it is to know for sure. That said, I'm not aware of any active use. Some root programs constrain some of the roots within, but afaik, not by having an x.509 cert with name constraints.
It currently does, unless they get a cert cross-signed from a CA that’s in the root CA list.
Which is a problem with the root cA design.
Which is a problem with the root cA design.
What about a "root" CA only capable of signing .gov certificates?
GSA had that chance when they wrote the rules for all government services to use https. They didn’t even offer letsencrypt, much less build their own CA. The corporate CAs wanted their cut of more tax money.
I was pretty sure there is already one for the US Gov but according to [1] only the Gov of HK, Spain, Netherlands and Turkey [2] have one.
[1] https://ccadb.my.salesforce-sites.com/mozilla/IncludedCACert... [2] There seems to be a Mozilla applied constraint for .tr only
[1] https://ccadb.my.salesforce-sites.com/mozilla/IncludedCACert... [2] There seems to be a Mozilla applied constraint for .tr only
It's unlikely for a scammer to get a gov domain.
Define unlikely?
https://www.pcmag.com/news/its-now-a-bit-harder-to-register-...
Because it was possible, maybe better now!
Because it was possible, maybe better now!
I’ve always thought it was weird that the Canadian federal government uses canada.ca almost exclusively. You see a lot of
It’s at least consistant in looking like a phishing scam!
https://service-service.canada.ca/sign-up-sinscrire.aspx
https://service-service-canada.ca/sign-up-sinscrire.aspx
It’s at least consistant in looking like a phishing scam!
.gc.ca exists for that exact purpose. It has the advantage of being bilingual ("GC" expands to both "Government of Canada" and "Gouvernement du Canada", .gov.ca omits the "u" in the French word gouvernement).
I believe the canada.ca thing relates to the centralization of federal government IT under Shared Services Canada (SSC) in 2011. SSC is an attempt to make a "one stop shop" for government IT services, and Canada.ca is an extension of that philosophy to web presence.
As an aside, SSC is very controversial in the Canadian federal government. They have a reputation for glacially slow delivery of services and inflexibility in IT policies. The head of StatCan actually resigned in 2016 in protest as a result of problems with SSC [1]. They have gotten better since then but it's still rocky.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-interview...
I believe the canada.ca thing relates to the centralization of federal government IT under Shared Services Canada (SSC) in 2011. SSC is an attempt to make a "one stop shop" for government IT services, and Canada.ca is an extension of that philosophy to web presence.
As an aside, SSC is very controversial in the Canadian federal government. They have a reputation for glacially slow delivery of services and inflexibility in IT policies. The head of StatCan actually resigned in 2016 in protest as a result of problems with SSC [1]. They have gotten better since then but it's still rocky.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-interview...
I completely forgot about gc.ca. I'm surprised they haven't kept with it! Didn't know about SCC, resigning over that is a pretty strong indicator of how the internals of the federal government's IT decision makers work haha.
They have. Canada.ca is the "marketing site", basically, and all of the federal internal systems and departmental apps are in .gc.ca, usually on a cryptic subdomain which is the English and French acronyms for the department.
Well that's good I guess. Just saying it would be nice for the external things I'm familiar with.
We do have gc.ca, but I think it’s maybe legacy? https://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/tbsc-fsco/sc-hme.jsp?lang=en... works but servicecanada.gc.ca redirects to canada.ca
> CIRA could set up a .gov.ca second level or something if they really wanted to keep the .ca
As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, Canada wouldn't be eligible to use bare .gov if they wanted to, because it's only for US government entities.
As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, Canada wouldn't be eligible to use bare .gov if they wanted to, because it's only for US government entities.
[deleted]
http://war-on-pineapple.com is purportedly owned by the Department of Homeland Security. It’s a dead link, unfortunately. What a curious domain!
[0]: https://github.com/GSA/govt-urls/blob/main/2_govt_urls_feder...
[0]: https://github.com/GSA/govt-urls/blob/main/2_govt_urls_feder...
The plot thickens. The former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency apparently dislikes pineapple on pizza: https://twitter.com/CISAKrebs/status/1154462806311235584.
Interesting to see both the Minnesota House of Representatives and State Senate using the ccTLD of Mongolia.
[0] https://www.house.mn
[1] https://www.senate.mn
[0] https://www.house.mn
[1] https://www.senate.mn
House.mn redirects to https://www.house.mn.gov
My favorite URL oddity has to be "id.me" for U.S. Citizen identity services.
Seems a bit odd to use a Montenegro domain, doesn't it?
Seems a bit odd to use a Montenegro domain, doesn't it?
It seems to be run by a third-party company that the government latched on to for some reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID.me
Nothing out of the ordinary for individual government departments to turn to private contractors when the GSA doesn't offer them a service they need when they need it.
GSA has since developed login.gov, but there hasn't been a mandate that other agencies have to use it over third-parties.
GSA has since developed login.gov, but there hasn't been a mandate that other agencies have to use it over third-parties.
Ah I see! Hope there's one soon
There was another one (census, maybe? can't recall which agency it was) using a .gd for a while, too... don't see it on the list anymore. Not sure who signed off on putting government services behind the "control" of a country we've invaded before.
I got an official email from New York State's Office Of The Comptroller with a link to osc.state.ny.us. It came from an email address @osc.ny.gov. I don't understand why they couldn't use an official TLD in the URL too.
state.$STATE.us is an official domain, too. In the before times, .gov was intended for the US Federal government, and states were expected to use space within .us.
It got rather messy when the Feds started letting states get delegations under .gov and .us was opened to registration of second level domains and new multilevel delegates became discouraged or disallowed.
It got rather messy when the Feds started letting states get delegations under .gov and .us was opened to registration of second level domains and new multilevel delegates became discouraged or disallowed.
state.ny.us and www.state.ny.us don't even resolve though. What a mess.
The net result is that the Comptroller's new program trying to get everyone their missing funds is sending email that exclusively arrive in people's spam folders.
The net result is that the Comptroller's new program trying to get everyone their missing funds is sending email that exclusively arrive in people's spam folders.
I used to do contracting work for a state government agency (that also owned the .gov and .us domains), and they had rules about what could be hosted on .gov vs. .us that were sufficiently restrictive that I was told on the first day that we only ever deploy things to .us. Perhaps something similar exists for NY, and/or that "rule" was actually federal?
I saw a similar problem at dhs. The contractors who run email & office software don’t talk with the contractors who run their web presence, on two completely separate domains. Lots of US gov orgs use way too many contracts instead of staff.
The most egregious of these to me is moneyfactory.com (the Bureau of Engraving & Printing).
It reads as very low-rent considering it's the printing press of the US Dollar. If they reached out to me I'd think it was a weak scam.
It reads as very low-rent considering it's the printing press of the US Dollar. If they reached out to me I'd think it was a weak scam.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing just produces paper. Pretty paper that looks a lot like US dollars, but isn't in fact US dollars until the Federal Reserve Bank takes possession and issues it.
In any case, moneyfactory.com is just a redirect to bep.gov, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. The average person's interaction with the BEP, aside from handling paper money, is probably at their gift shop. Having a cutesy name probably made sense at some level.
In any case, moneyfactory.com is just a redirect to bep.gov, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. The average person's interaction with the BEP, aside from handling paper money, is probably at their gift shop. Having a cutesy name probably made sense at some level.
It redirects to bep.gov now, but a decade+ ago it was their preferred URL.
You can still find the URL in older press releases on treasury.gov, other US government sites, and older news sites, and all I meant is that it reads very a little naïve and "off brand" to me these as a modern reader:
You can still find the URL in older press releases on treasury.gov, other US government sites, and older news sites, and all I meant is that it reads very a little naïve and "off brand" to me these as a modern reader:
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/20035137475911137
https://money.cnn.com/2003/09/16/pf/banking/marketing_new_money/index.htm
https://www.dailynebraskan.com/local-businesses-prepare-for-new-20-bill/article_6a2ea77f-60e4-52aa-8217-731a6cdf9114.htmlIt might be parked to prevent scams
Apparently they also have moneyfactory.gov
[makes an authoritative list of non gov federal sites so you know you can trust them even though they’re not at dot gov]
[puts that list at a non dot gov website]
[puts that list at a non dot gov website]
My favorite is definitely Smithsonian. They're very, very proud that they are si.edu.
Title should state "US Government..."
It's kind of implied, right? Since .gov is only for the US.
> It's kind of implied, right?
No. https://gov.uk is a "government URL" and it's one that doesn't end in ".gov".
The title should be "US government URLs that don't end in .gov"
No. https://gov.uk is a "government URL" and it's one that doesn't end in ".gov".
The title should be "US government URLs that don't end in .gov"
I’m surprised how many people here aren’t aware of this.
At this point most internet users are digital natives who don't know how things worked before eternal September.
This is becoming quite clear, and it's fascinating. I'm an old timer and assumed that people mostly had an idea how the Internet worked, especially on HN. Apparently not. The history is getting forgotten.
I'm aware of this. I'm just slightly offended by the title. None of my government's URLs end in a .gov. By not acknowledging this, the title ignores my country's existence. It's like I wrote a blog post "Government URLs that don't end in .gov.pl")
Such is the US's reward for building out the nascent infrastructure of the early Internet.
Also, this is a US centric site run by a US based company. The "American" part is implied unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Also, this is a US centric site run by a US based company. The "American" part is implied unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> Such is the US's reward for building out the nascent infrastructure of the early Internet.
Like the world-wide-web we're all using to discuss this topic via? Oh, wait.
> Also, this is a US centric site run by a US based company. The "American" part is implied unless explicitly stated otherwise.
It is unfortunate that the point you are trying to express here has been worded in a way which does nothing but to reinforce stereotypes that Americans are arrogant and excessively nationalistic, since I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
As dang has pointed out previously, Americans only make up about half of the audience here - and they may even be a minority today (this comment and the data referenced within it is a good 3 months old): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35464697
Like the world-wide-web we're all using to discuss this topic via? Oh, wait.
> Also, this is a US centric site run by a US based company. The "American" part is implied unless explicitly stated otherwise.
It is unfortunate that the point you are trying to express here has been worded in a way which does nothing but to reinforce stereotypes that Americans are arrogant and excessively nationalistic, since I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
As dang has pointed out previously, Americans only make up about half of the audience here - and they may even be a minority today (this comment and the data referenced within it is a good 3 months old): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35464697
United States Government, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton™, brought to you by Walmart® in partnership with McDonalds™ and Coca-Cola®, if you want to be pedantic.
[deleted]
“annualcreditreport.com” is in the list but it’s not a government website. It’s run by a lovely alliance from equifax/transunion/experian, asking you to check the info they hold on you to avoid other people stealing money from banks.
It’s run by that lovely alliance because U.S. federal law says that they must do so. Which is why it is on this list.
Very odd indeed. In Australia, government departments almost always use .gov.au unless there are exceptional reasons. In the States, it is .[state].gov.au, eg .nsw.gov.au.
A few years ago I was hired on at my local sheriff's department and I was so disappointed that we did not have a dot gov domain.
You could have gotten (them) one - it’s actually not an onerous process!
[deleted]
Here are all domains, extracted:
94
army
as
biz
cc
cfm
ch
cn
co
com
com
de
Domain name
edu
gov
gu
helenapj
htm
info
int
io
me
mn
mobi
mp
ms
net
nl
online
org
org
pr
sc
tips
travel
tv
tw
us
vg
vi
wiki
ws
xyz
Gov is a horrible because it is exclusively for US.
It would be better if all governmental intitutions in the world could have a gov domain. Much better trust and verification
The word for government in most languages doesn't start with gov-, so no thanks.
I'd personally suggest the opposite, the US switching to .gov.us and .edu.us, but consensus in this thread seems to be that "everyone" already knows those are US-only anyway, where "everyone" of course means Americans; even "too late to change" is a better argument than that, IMO.
I'd personally suggest the opposite, the US switching to .gov.us and .edu.us, but consensus in this thread seems to be that "everyone" already knows those are US-only anyway, where "everyone" of course means Americans; even "too late to change" is a better argument than that, IMO.
tva.com. That's gotta be worth some money now.
Always found it arbitrary that .gov is only for use by the US.
Had another country had a primary role in inventing the internet, they would probably have it (or more likely, the US would be .gov.us and everyone else would be whatever they are today).
I don’t understand this argument. Are you saying the internet should be organised in a way that benefits the US, even if it is confusing for people in other countries? By your reasoning, it would make sense for .com to be US-exclusive because the US had a primary role in inventing the internet. Let’s pause to ask ourselves “what is an actually good system?” instead of “how can we justify US privilege?”.
The question isn't really "is this a good system", it's "is this a bad enough system that it's worth spending billions of dollars to change".
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's what led to where we are today.
That’s fair, sorry, I read too much into what you were saying!
CERN / Switzerland would like a word
The WWW was invented at CERN in 1990, whereas the .gov TLD dates from 1985.
The internet != the world wide web.
Hell, CERN's involvement barely pre-dates my own domain. Pretty sure they didn't invent the Internet.
> > primary
Other countries could create their gTLD as they see fit: .gouv, .ukgov, etc.
They instead prefer using a SLD (like .gouv.fr) because they’re complete owner of their ccTLD. ccTLDs are not affiliated in anyway with ICANN. I’m guessing .gov is a special case nowadays, and probably considered like a ccTLD from the ICANN point of view, I’ll have to look into it
Edit: it seems like gov is considered as a Sponsored TLD[1] (sTLD). Not sure what it implies.
[1]: https://icannwiki.org/STLD
They instead prefer using a SLD (like .gouv.fr) because they’re complete owner of their ccTLD. ccTLDs are not affiliated in anyway with ICANN. I’m guessing .gov is a special case nowadays, and probably considered like a ccTLD from the ICANN point of view, I’ll have to look into it
Edit: it seems like gov is considered as a Sponsored TLD[1] (sTLD). Not sure what it implies.
[1]: https://icannwiki.org/STLD
> ccTLDs are not affiliated in anyway with ICANN
ccTLDs delegations are managed by IANA, who are owned by ICANN
ccTLDs delegations are managed by IANA, who are owned by ICANN
While its true there is still a relationship back to ICANN for ccTLDs, politically it would be a shitstorm of epic proportions if the US/ICANN interfered in the administration of ccTLDs - most countries (understandably!) see their ccTLD as an increasingly sovereign thing that is naturally owned by the State, not the registrars or domain name registration system.
While it might be technically possible for ICANN to make certain adjustments to the ccTLD system or the registration requirements, politically its much much harder and gets harder still with time. Imagine the response from most soverign states etc if their own ccTLD was meddled with in a manner they didn't appreciate.
ICANN has slowly tried to move more and more of the ccTLD stuff to international working groups ("Governmental Advisory Committee") to put clean air between the US and ccTLDs, but the link is still there:
https://gac.icann.org/
https://gac.icann.org/principles-and-guidelines/public/princ...
While it might be technically possible for ICANN to make certain adjustments to the ccTLD system or the registration requirements, politically its much much harder and gets harder still with time. Imagine the response from most soverign states etc if their own ccTLD was meddled with in a manner they didn't appreciate.
ICANN has slowly tried to move more and more of the ccTLD stuff to international working groups ("Governmental Advisory Committee") to put clean air between the US and ccTLDs, but the link is still there:
https://gac.icann.org/
https://gac.icann.org/principles-and-guidelines/public/princ...
So every time the FBI/CIA sets up a domain for a sting operation it has to be listed here? Seems like an Achilles' heel, no?
> This repo contains USA.gov's list of public government domains and URLs that don't end in .gov or .mil.
Definitely not.
Definitely not.
What says it has to be listed here?
https://search.gov/about/policy/govt-urls.html
"Federal executive branch agencies must ensure their non-.gov or .mil domains are on the list."
Also on this page, there is an "out of scope" list which only includes 4 things: SaaS, cloud resources, SNS sites, and code repos. I take the govt at its word--it has never lied before--so naturally covert ops must be "in-scope".
"Federal executive branch agencies must ensure their non-.gov or .mil domains are on the list."
Also on this page, there is an "out of scope" list which only includes 4 things: SaaS, cloud resources, SNS sites, and code repos. I take the govt at its word--it has never lied before--so naturally covert ops must be "in-scope".
> In Comments
> ... Don't be snarky. ... Edit out swipes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> ... Don't be snarky. ... Edit out swipes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In the words of the great philosopher Popeye: "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam."
It’d be more interesting to see a list of sites that end in .gov but aren’t government associated. I feel like the creation of such a site would involve some inside connections and shady backroom deals.
Sort of funny that the README never mentions which government they're talking about. Classic USA trying to make sure everyone knows they're the most important country in the history of planet Earth
It's implied which government they are talking about because 1) .gov is only used by the US; and 2) The GitHub account is GSA - U.S. General Services Administration.
It's only implied if you're from America and know that GSA (which does not contain US in the acronym) is US.
[deleted]
Same here, it took me few seconds to realize it was a US only. Usually this is the mindset of “Murricans”, on the internet or otherwise, where sometimes you ask someone “where are you from?” And they proceed to mention the state or worse, the state nickname/short name as if you are living in US, it’s hilarious when they are meeting with people who aren’t in the Americas continent at all :)
I've met a fair number of people internationally and I could probably count on one hand how many of them didn't know that Oregon was a US state.
It could just be that I'm meeting with more educated folks, granted.
It could just be that I'm meeting with more educated folks, granted.
You might argue that, but the point isn’t about the receiver/listener side, but rather the speaker, obviously knowing where X will be about that person knowledge in geography, but for the speaker to assume that everyone you are talking to as if they are living in the same country as him/her, imagine you are talking to someone from .. say Thailand, and instead of mentioning the country, they say they from Phayao -a province name, of course, if you happen to be knowledgeable in that region geography or visited before you might know, but it’s still a communication hurdle to assume everyone will.
>you ask someone “where are you from?”
Generally, I'll answer with "The place so nice, they named it twice."[0]
[0] I wasn't sure if I wanted to include an actual reference to define that, but here you go[1].
[1] https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/new...
Edit: Fixed typo.
Generally, I'll answer with "The place so nice, they named it twice."[0]
[0] I wasn't sure if I wanted to include an actual reference to define that, but here you go[1].
[1] https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/new...
Edit: Fixed typo.
Without fail when someone asks me internationally where I’m from and I say the US they inevitably ask what state. Saying the state merely short circuits a follow up question that, in my personal experience, is likely to happen.
The "About" section on the side mentions the USA specifically.
It just seems to me that it would be more secure, and more reassuring to citizens and visitors that they are on the correct site it's under a cctld that's clearly affiliated to and managed by that government.
0: https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-and-manage-a-gov-uk-domain-name
--
Edit: turns out .gov is exclusively for the US, not sure I feel good about that, particularly as .com and .net are very much not just for the US.
The possibility of the US government creating a .gov specifically to confuse uses in a foreign country isn't ideal.
I get it, you invented the internet, but the special status you have over it is a little frustrating.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/M-23-1...