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 <j...@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. >