Solutions to prevent/combat email header spoofing have been gaining quite a bit of traction and are quite prevalant. And yes, if that means taking the domain away from people that don't implement said solutions, then poof you've lost the domain. It would accomplish getting rid of domain owners that enable spammers.
So if I don't even use my domain for email, I'm liable to lose it because I don't have the knowledge or even awareness to set up the proper SPF records or whatever solution du jour? That's a terrible tax on people who just want to have their own small website.
And what for? If the receivers can check for the existence and SPF records of the domain, they can also just block email from domains without any valid SPF records. There's no reason to create such draconian policies.
There is a big difference between censorship and removing junk from your network. Perhaps it is something we should worry about, but we should have thought of censorship BEFORE we allowed the US to maintain control of ICANN, don't you think?
Not really, because they don't usually censor. It should be something we should worry about if we gave you the control of ICANN.
Probably not the common definition, but if it pollutes the domain/tld namespace with useless/junk domains then yes you can call it spam.
No, because "useless" is subjective.
Hence why I suggested we either treat ICANN like a for-profit private enterprise with NO government monopoly or privilege of licensing, OR we damn well make sure it behaves like non-profit acting for the public good. I.e. no lucrative money grabs such as the one in this article.
I don't see why is this TLD scheme against the public good in any way. Transferring money from big companies to an organization which provides such a core service seems great to me, and all the downsides I've been hearing about are mostly people's aesthetically sensibilities being hurt.
At the very least they're better than what we have now.
So if I don't even use my domain for email, I'm liable to lose it because I don't have the knowledge or even awareness to set up the proper SPF records or whatever solution du jour? That's a terrible tax on people who just want to have their own small website.
I never said that. Are you even trying to have a discussion, or just disagreeing for its own sake?
Not really, because they don't usually censor. It should be something we should worry about if we gave you the control of ICANN.
Didn't you just complain about US government censorship in your previous post? Either way, you're blatantly clumping together censorship with other things, so it's pointless to discuss this point with you.
No, because "useless" is subjective.
Doesn't matter if the majority of people agree with the subjective opinion. And currently we have the subjective opinion of the few managers of the ICANN calling all the shots.
I don't see why is this TLD scheme against the public good in any way. Transferring money from big companies to an organization which provides such a core service seems great to me, and all the downsides I've been hearing about are mostly people's aesthetically sensibilities being hurt.
Wow, you didn't actually read anything I wrote about this point, did you? Guess that wouldn't fit your narrative or suit your argument.
Adding censorship is never better.
That's your opinion, really. Again, loaded with a biased and opinionated definition of "censorship", rendering discussion of this point with you pretty useless.
So if I don't even use my domain for email, I'm liable to lose it because I don't have the knowledge or even awareness to set up the proper SPF records or whatever solution du jour? That's a terrible tax on people who just want to have their own small website.
And what for? If the receivers can check for the existence and SPF records of the domain, they can also just block email from domains without any valid SPF records. There's no reason to create such draconian policies.
There is a big difference between censorship and removing junk from your network. Perhaps it is something we should worry about, but we should have thought of censorship BEFORE we allowed the US to maintain control of ICANN, don't you think?
Not really, because they don't usually censor. It should be something we should worry about if we gave you the control of ICANN.
Probably not the common definition, but if it pollutes the domain/tld namespace with useless/junk domains then yes you can call it spam.
No, because "useless" is subjective.
Hence why I suggested we either treat ICANN like a for-profit private enterprise with NO government monopoly or privilege of licensing, OR we damn well make sure it behaves like non-profit acting for the public good. I.e. no lucrative money grabs such as the one in this article.
I don't see why is this TLD scheme against the public good in any way. Transferring money from big companies to an organization which provides such a core service seems great to me, and all the downsides I've been hearing about are mostly people's aesthetically sensibilities being hurt.
At the very least they're better than what we have now.
Adding censorship is never better.