3 ms·

> they should never have been available to entities that don't have ties to the country That would have just opened the door to proxy-ownership. You register a

> they should never have been available to entities that don't have ties to the country That would have just opened the door to proxy-ownership. You register a domain under a company and they let you use it.

mananaysiempre 3y ago
Which is absolutely something that happens with ccTLDs that impose that kind of policy today.
jeroenhd 3y ago
That proxy ownership takes significantly more time and money than the domain itself. I think it would prevent "queer.af" situations quite well.
- lobsterthief 3y ago
  “Significantly more time and money” just means bigger companies will have more of a monopoly on those domains, which is also not good.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    I don't think I've ever noticed a problem with this. The only difference I can find is that the "buy this domain for $4000" scammers have a different default language.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  .af is so beautiful for vanity domains but only someone with a complete and total ignorance of multiple subjects would register one for serious use. Yeah, at least requiring a proxy you might have someone with enough knowledge to point out the mistake there.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Seems more like a statement than a mistake.
    - plorg 3y ago
      In the case of queer.af (as noted in TFA) they registered the domain in 2018 when the government was significantly different, and, recognizing the political situation, were working on moving to a different one.
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        Was the former government empathetic to that? I wouldn't have thought so. I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows about it.
        plorg 3y ago
        On the one hand perhaps yes because they did not lose their registration under that government. Also for good or ill that government was under some amount of influence from the United States which, while not perfect, could be seen as offering some amount of influence or protection. On the other hand, it was probably more the case that, in the absence of the Taliban, the people creating the site simply did not have the same concerns as they later would.
  - et-al 3y ago
    What about the early 2000s adoption of .ly (Libya)?
- Gormo 3y ago
  Not really. There already are some ccTLDs that do require a local nexus, and the registrars just incorporate trustee services into the domain registration. There's a bit of a price premium, but nothing major, and the time impact usually amounts to filling out one extra form when purchasing a domain.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    In that case the raised price will still impact the likelihood of someone unaware of the ccTLD specifics getting their domains registered in countries they've never even heard of.
victorbjorklund 3y ago
Yup. .NO has restrictions on their domain names. And that happens with them. Just ends up with less transparency and more costs (that doesn't go to internet infrastructure but lawyers etc).
- lolinder 3y ago
  It may happen with them, but it's much more rare than with .ly and .io and .ai. I can't recall ever seeing a .no.

mananaysiempre 3y ago

Which is absolutely something that happens with ccTLDs that impose that kind of policy today.

jeroenhd 3y ago

That proxy ownership takes significantly more time and money than the domain itself. I think it would prevent "queer.af" situations quite well.

lobsterthief 3y ago
“Significantly more time and money” just means bigger companies will have more of a monopoly on those domains, which is also not good.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  I don't think I've ever noticed a problem with this. The only difference I can find is that the "buy this domain for $4000" scammers have a different default language.
plagiarist 3y ago
.af is so beautiful for vanity domains but only someone with a complete and total ignorance of multiple subjects would register one for serious use. Yeah, at least requiring a proxy you might have someone with enough knowledge to point out the mistake there.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  Seems more like a statement than a mistake.
  - plorg 3y ago
    In the case of queer.af (as noted in TFA) they registered the domain in 2018 when the government was significantly different, and, recognizing the political situation, were working on moving to a different one.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      Was the former government empathetic to that? I wouldn't have thought so. I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows about it.
      - plorg 3y ago
        On the one hand perhaps yes because they did not lose their registration under that government. Also for good or ill that government was under some amount of influence from the United States which, while not perfect, could be seen as offering some amount of influence or protection. On the other hand, it was probably more the case that, in the absence of the Taliban, the people creating the site simply did not have the same concerns as they later would.
- et-al 3y ago
  What about the early 2000s adoption of .ly (Libya)?
Gormo 3y ago
Not really. There already are some ccTLDs that do require a local nexus, and the registrars just incorporate trustee services into the domain registration. There's a bit of a price premium, but nothing major, and the time impact usually amounts to filling out one extra form when purchasing a domain.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  In that case the raised price will still impact the likelihood of someone unaware of the ccTLD specifics getting their domains registered in countries they've never even heard of.

victorbjorklund 3y ago

Yup. .NO has restrictions on their domain names. And that happens with them. Just ends up with less transparency and more costs (that doesn't go to internet infrastructure but lawyers etc).

lolinder 3y ago
It may happen with them, but it's much more rare than with .ly and .io and .ai. I can't recall ever seeing a .no.