[174782] in North American Network Operators' Group
.sj/.bv == privacy?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Wed Oct 1 10:39:31 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:39:11 -0400
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.
