nanog mailing list archives
Re: .sj/.bv == privacy?
From: Mehmet Akcin <mehmet () akcin net>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:35:53 -0700
I am not opposed to the proposed use but that doesn't seem to be a great fit for what I believe a practice for a ccTLD should be. mehmet On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
Here's an interesting, and fairly thoughtful and well written, piece about talks going on in Norway to utilize two ccTLDs which are assigned to the country for outlying territories for the purpose of a specialty domain registry where registrants (such as hosting companies) would be contractually required to guarantee privacy to their end customers. I think the idea has some merit, myself; I have always preferred to see municipalities, frex, registered in domains where it's clear they had to /be the municipality/ to get the registration... to avoid things like the Largo.com Joe job of earlier years. (Yay, RFC1480!) But I'm not sure if a ccTLD is the place to put that. I'm sure the argument is "well this puts the weight of the country of Norway behind it". But that's a sword that cuts both ways. http://www.zdnet.com/how-two-remote-arctic-territories-became-the-front-line-in-the-battle-for-internet-privacy-7000034245/ -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Current thread:
- .sj/.bv == privacy? Jay Ashworth (Oct 01)
- Re: .sj/.bv == privacy? Mehmet Akcin (Oct 01)
- Re: .sj/.bv == privacy? Dave Crocker (Oct 01)
- Re: .sj/.bv == privacy? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 01)