4 ms·
> Every .io domain you renew legitimises and reinforces the continued exile of the Chagossians. The history there is unfortunate (although the history lesson i
by KronisLV 3y ago
> Every .io domain you renew legitimises and reinforces the continued exile of the Chagossians.
The history there is unfortunate (although the history lesson itself is welcome), but at the same time this is akin to saying: you should boycott products and services from the UK/US. If you feel that way, you can try to do that, but I get the feeling that purely logistically that would get pretty difficult to do. Looking at every piece of food you buy at the store, to see where it's from, looking at every website of the companies that you want to do business with. You might lose access to a lot of hardware, appliances and even the majority of the websites out there to make a stand.
I get why one might single out the .io domains for symbolic reasons, but at the same time most people probably think of something like I/O and haven't even heard of Chagos Archipelago, ergo there's not a lot of intentional legitimization/reinforcement of any kind going on.
- ethbr1 3y agoWell, the thought process is that cents from every .io registration go to a private equity firm. And none of that money goes to the people who historically lived there and were displaced. So... that's a pretty shitty thing to support (as someone registering a domain), when the alternative is simply "Pick a different TLD." Tbh, ICANN/IANA should either (a) dissolve the TLD as-is, as there is no independent country it covers (and the UK already has one and doesn't want it) or (b) switch it to Chagossian ownership, so they financially benefit. The current situation and ownership is indefensible.
- wavemode 3y agoThe part I fail to follow is that denouncing the occupation of Chagos necessarily means that the two letter abbreviation "IO" becomes off-limits for all use cases. If ICANN were to actually step in, all they would realistically do (which, logically, should address your concerns) is designate that .io now stands for Input/Output and should be used for tech-related websites (which would merely legitimize how the TLD is currently used anyway).
- ethbr1 3y agoThe original British sod who bought the lot has already made off with ill-gotten gains. But the private equity company that currently owns it bought it from him. So I fail to see how the current PE owner has any legitimate claim to own the TLD. They "own" stolen property. ICANN should rip it from their hands, then re-bid it as a gTLD. If the same PE company wants to rebuy it... that's their business, and fairly done.
- KaiserPro 3y ago> They "own" stolen property. but its not stolen? > ICANN should rip it from their hands, then re-bid it as a gTLD. but if it is stolen, taking it away and re-selling it isnt the correct remedy. surely it should go to the descendants of the people who are displaced? or better yet, put in trust to provide for them in perpetuity.
- duskwuff 3y ago> If ICANN were to actually step in, all they would realistically do (which, logically, should address your concerns) is designate that .io now stands for Input/Output Highly unlikely. Two-letter (non-IDN) TLDs are strictly reserved for country codes. This would be a strange time to break that rule, and it'd send a really terrible message, i.e. "if your country's ccTLD falls into the wrong hands, we'll take it away from you forever".
- sgjohnson 3y ago> The current situation and ownership is indefensible. It's very easily defensible. BIOT is internationally recognized as a sovereign territory of the UK. > And none of that money goes to the people who historically lived there and were displaced. I fail to see how this is relevant. It's a thing that has happened a million times in the past and has been rarely rectified. We don't (and never will) live in a perfect world. The status quo offers the most certainty, therefore is the best option for holders of .io domain names.
- pseudalopex 3y ago> BIOT is internationally recognized as a sovereign territory of the UK. It's internationally recognized as territory unlawfully occupied by the UK.[1] > I fail to see how this is relevant. It's a thing that has happened a million times in the past and has been rarely rectified. We don't (and never will) live in a perfect world. I fail to see how this is relevant. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory#International_opinion_and_rulings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory...