| |||||||||||||
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica)My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica)Posted May 14, 2012 10:51 UTC (Mon) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106)Parent article: My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica) Yet another group falsely conflating security with identity. There are two possibilities: This succeeds at a large scale and thus simply raises barriers of entry (costs) for anyone trying to set up a domain that people will agree to connect to, or it winds up meaning nothing. I don't see value in either one.
(Log in to post comments)
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica) Posted May 14, 2012 20:59 UTC (Mon) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
Or as the CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority says: "Half of all new top-level domains will fail".
"Just like any other private business starting up, all these new TLDs will have a 50 per cent chance of going out of business in two or three years"
He might be biased, but I do think many will fail. A few of the older TLDs had almost failed.
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica) Posted May 15, 2012 0:31 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
how does a TLD fail?
the business model of the org creating the TLD may fail, but unless they completely shut down the nameservers can the TLD be said to have failed?
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica) Posted May 16, 2012 0:54 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
The nameservers for the TLD get shut down when the business quits paying its bills, don't they?
At $50,000+/hour for arbitration, those bills could get astronomical fast.
|
|||||||||||||