I completely agree with you. My point was purely to say that in the future those running parts of the fediverse now need to be more cautious. Now that we know that ICAAN will allow TLD administrators to reclaim these domains, it’s important that TLDs are chosen less about how they look in the moment as a cool URL, and more about their historical integrity of keeping a domain active.
My point was purely to say that in the future those running parts of the fediverse now need to be more cautious.
And that’s where I disagree. This is like being attacked by a lion in Berlin. Yeah, it’s a risk, but tbh it’s just such a stupid situation that if it happens, we are decentralised so for most ppl it should be a minimal impact, and for the rest it’s unavoidable. My point is, there’s always a non-zero chance for this but we should waste no time thinking about this, as there’s no real solution to it. It’s like saying “there’s a non-zero chance my house can be hit by the shockwave a meteorite”. No one prepares for that, as it makes no sense to accomodate for that.
And I generally agree with the integrity of your solution, but at that point you would also need to think about any other political decision that could lead to TLDs changing ownership. Imagine if .net changed ownership and suddenly there’s a 23yo billionaire setting new prices for like every 5th host on the internet. That’s so ridiculous there’s no way plan for all of those possibilities in every way.
My comment is purely about new servers being set up. It’s decentralized but there is a massive margin of users on certain servers. It’s always a non-zero chance of something going wrong, but the fediverse shouldn’t be without responsibility and efforts to improve. If it’s know that certain TLDs are likely to take back a domain, then don’t use them.
there’s a non-zero chance my house can be hit by the shockwave a meteorite
More like “there’s a non-zero chance that country-based TLDs are more risky”
One has real data behind it, one is a literal random basis
I completely agree with you. My point was purely to say that in the future those running parts of the fediverse now need to be more cautious. Now that we know that ICAAN will allow TLD administrators to reclaim these domains, it’s important that TLDs are chosen less about how they look in the moment as a cool URL, and more about their historical integrity of keeping a domain active.
And that’s where I disagree. This is like being attacked by a lion in Berlin. Yeah, it’s a risk, but tbh it’s just such a stupid situation that if it happens, we are decentralised so for most ppl it should be a minimal impact, and for the rest it’s unavoidable. My point is, there’s always a non-zero chance for this but we should waste no time thinking about this, as there’s no real solution to it. It’s like saying “there’s a non-zero chance my house can be hit by the shockwave a meteorite”. No one prepares for that, as it makes no sense to accomodate for that.
And I generally agree with the integrity of your solution, but at that point you would also need to think about any other political decision that could lead to TLDs changing ownership. Imagine if .net changed ownership and suddenly there’s a 23yo billionaire setting new prices for like every 5th host on the internet. That’s so ridiculous there’s no way plan for all of those possibilities in every way.
My comment is purely about new servers being set up. It’s decentralized but there is a massive margin of users on certain servers. It’s always a non-zero chance of something going wrong, but the fediverse shouldn’t be without responsibility and efforts to improve. If it’s know that certain TLDs are likely to take back a domain, then don’t use them.
More like “there’s a non-zero chance that country-based TLDs are more risky”
One has real data behind it, one is a literal random basis