[174785] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: .sj/.bv == privacy?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mehmet Akcin)
Wed Oct 1 11:36:03 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <10946629-4d0d-4f41-8110-bedc41509b3a@email.android.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:35:53 -0700
From: Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net>
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.
>
