I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between ".com" and ".biz", "people" don't understand when something isn't a ".com" and don't trust it. When I say "people" I'm talking about the average non-technical consumer. That is all. I do think that this breaks more than it's worth, and while it will mean a short-term revenue boost, it doesn't seem very scaleable nor in the long-term interest of DNS on the whole. It sounds like we're beginning the process of migrating to AOL keywords; I wonder if AOL has a patent on it... On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:57 PM, <brun...@nic-naa.net> wrote: > ray, > >> ... only trust ".band" and that ".com" et. al. are "less secure". > > "secure" is not a well-defined term. > > as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk, > a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at > the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting less > risk than credit card fraud would have less "insecure" registration > events. -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/
