On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 18:29 +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote: > On 02/20/2017 10:21 AM, hellekin wrote: > > On 02/18/2017 04:45 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > > I think it would be ideal if we didn't just "have" the domains, > > > but if > > > we had someone running an FCFS (or other policy) registration > > > service > > > for GNS there, and possibly a dns2gns bridge, as you > > > envisioned. So if > > > we had volunteers that could envision doing so in the future, I'd > > > say > > > that's a good reason to retain the domains. So anyone here who > > > has > > > plans of becoming a public service registrar for the GNU Name > > > System? > > > > > > > If you need such a service, then GNUnet e.V. should take the > > domains. > > Whoever is going to run the service should be technical contact, > > not > > registrant nor administrative contact. I.e., asking to volunteers > > to > > take charge of the domains is a bit abusive, as they're already > > giving > > their attention. > > I'm confused here, who else could be the contact here, but some > volunteer? > > > That said, throwing money at DNS rent might not be the best option > > to > > support a post-DNS project :) > > The same sentiment was repeatedly voiced by several people from the > GNUnet e.V.-Vorstand, basically echoing your point that GNUnet e.V. > should simply not be in the business of throwing money at DNS, and > that > we can do all we need to do under gnunet.org. > > So maybe we keep it simple and let Martin and Amatus do as they see > fit > as individuals with the names tg wanted to part with. That said, I > personally would not mind if they anyway use GNUnet e.V's mailing > address to obscure their personal address in whois. > I completely agree. I do not see the need to have more than 1 domain for the e.V. (gnunet.org) especially if that means spending 60euro/y.
However, I do think it would be nice if this discussion could lead into a reboot of fcfs/pin with a nicer makeup and maybe the possibility to trade names. Also a dns2gns gateway under pin.gnunet.org would be pretty nice. BR Martin > _______________________________________________ > GNUnet-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
