Here's an interesting, and fairly thoughtful and well written, piece about talks going on in Norway to utilize two ccTLDs which are assigned to the country for outlying territories for the purpose of a specialty domain registry where registrants (such as hosting companies) would be contractually required to guarantee privacy to their end customers.
I think the idea has some merit, myself; I have always preferred to see municipalities, frex, registered in domains where it's clear they had to /be the municipality/ to get the registration... to avoid things like the Largo.com Joe job of earlier years. (Yay, RFC1480!)
But I'm not sure if a ccTLD is the place to put that. I'm sure the argument is "well this puts the weight of the country of Norway behind it". But that's a sword that cuts both ways.
http://www.zdnet.com/how-two-remote-arctic-territories-became-the-front-line-in-the-battle-for-internet-privacy-7000034245/
I am not opposed to the proposed use but that doesn't seem to be a great
fit for what I believe a practice for a ccTLD should be.
mehmet
for the purpose of a specialty domain registry where registrants (such as hosting companies) would be contractually required to guarantee privacy to their end customers.
Hmmm...
Until privacy is a feature across many/most hosting services, anyone
specializing it is, in effect, identifying traffic that is likely to be
/more/ interesting for those wishing to inspect the data.
In other words, anything that explicitly identifies traffic as
attempting greater privacy is likely to be a greater target for attack.
d/
Which is a good reason to encrypt all network traffic by default, even if
it's just videos of kittens. You can still figure out a lot by doing
endpoint analysis, but it's a start (especially if one endpoint is
an 800 pound gorilla that can serve up almost anything).