Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net>]

I wouldn’t be likely to support this TLD because:

1. It gives end users a false sense of trust, similar (almost exactly so) to how green “Secure” padlocks are commonly mistaken for trust verifiers (that the entity they are communicating with is who they say they are vs the entity they are communicating with got a free certificate). 

2. It’s too dissimilar to our current TLDs in that it differentiates between server technicalities instead of content. The .ssl TLD could be used by any website with HTTPS regardless of what’s being hosted. Contrast that with say .libre which has a niche in noncommercial content, etc. Yes, we have all-purpose TLDs, but if this is just another general TLD then I think the name .ssl is too specific. 

I’d support this TLD if it were maybe a meta TLD where content is focused on security, etc. or OpenNIC specifically. But in that case a theoretical .opennic TLD would probably be a better option. 

As you propose, I think users will use .ssl as a secure alternative page, and not secure their primary domains on our other namespaces. .ssl may have a high HTTPS adoption, but Idon’t think it would improve among the other TLDs. 

As an aside, ModernTLD hopes to release a beta for a Certificate Authority in the next week or two on the tlsca-wg mailing list. Stay tuned. 

All the best,

Jonah

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:33 PM Matthias Merkel <matthias AT boltn-hosting.com> wrote:

This is just an idea which is supposed to drive SSL adoption on OpenNIC domains. Basically .ssl would be exclusively for domains offering a SSL version of their content. The adoption of SSL is very important so every way to make it higher is to be considered.

--

Matthias Merkel
CTO
BoltN Hosting Limited
https://boltn-hosting.com
Company registration number 11081979

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org