So there was:
…and there was:
…and a bunch of other postings elsewhere, the one constant being that Nominet’s plans to create a flatter, more cybersecured “.uk” top-level domain were illiberal, misadvised and perhaps anti-competitive.
Now the Telegraph:
Childrens charities oppose Nominet plan for ‘secure’ .uk web addresses
A children’s charities coalition, internet activists and businesses have lined up to criticise the plans by Nominet, the quango in charge of web addresses, to create a new “secure” area online for British businesses.
The plans are under fire from several directions, however, after a consultation invited opinions from across the internet industry, Government and other organisations.
The Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, a group representing the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, Action for Children and others on online safety issues, said the proposals had implications that were “quite stark” and “cannot be right”.
“You are in effect conceding and openly acknowledging that the regime which applies to some or all of the other uk domains – for example .co.uk and .org.uk – is open to the very forms of abuse which the .uk counter measures are designed to prevent,” wrote John Carr, the group’s chief executive.
He called for more rules around of .co.uk web addresses to stop them being abused by criminals.
“[It is] difficult to avoid the conclusion that Nominet could be setting itself up to run and profit from two entirely separate regimes, operating at two entirely different ethical levels,” he added.
As a friend put it: When children’s charities are against you, it’s ‘game over’.
I am not entirely in favour of the implications of how Mr Carr apparently reaches his conclusions, but I am right with him regards the two entirely different ethical levels comment.