Re: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed?

["Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol () nacs net>]

On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 05:22:57PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:

> If .com were used, for example, only for Slobbovian Universities, were
> being managed by one to the exclusion of other uses, etc, then perhaps
> it would be a good reason to consider decommissioning .com.
>
> And if the .to domain is not in any way being used as a TLD for the
> Kingdom of Tonga, but instead is being used only as a safe harbor for
> what appear to be malicious activities, then perhaps it should be
> decommissioned.
>
> Is that simple enough?

I've already given you one example of a domain not used for porn.

Here's another one: bounce.to, another redirection service.

I'm sure I can find others.

Of course, according to you, the TLD is rogue unless there are absolutely
no bad apples.

By this logic, I can argue for UUNet to turn off their circuit to you
if I have solid proof of *ONE* of your customers spamming.

Yes, I know, your argument is that a majority of the domains are porn
domains (not that that, in itself, is hard evidence of criminal activity)
and are used to spam. Prove "a majority."

> non-governmental regulation of the internet. Yet any suggestion that
> we do this is met with these sort of sneering, uncalled for,
> tangential, childish remarks made by individuals who obviously
> shouldn't be involved in regulating anything.

You're being flamed because you said something very foolish. Deal with it.
Happens to everyone.

> I think it's beginning to become obvious, to me anyhow, that any claim
> that the internet is better regulated by those who are involved in its
> engineering is a total failure as a concept.

Yes, Barry, you're setting a bad example. 


-- 

Anyone who spams me will be subject to torture by Jake,
my killer attack hedgehog, and/or Lizzy and Junior, my man-eating iguanas.