@mttaggart @mwl I think this article is clickbait....

I think this article is clickbait. It's claiming at the top that IANA "will" do all those things and then at the bottom admits IANA might not do those things.

I clicked because I knew .io might be on the chopping block and thought this article was saying IANA had announced formally what they were going to do, and I think I got had.

You might consider editing your post for folks who (most reprehensibly) boost without reading to the end.

Like 8 October at 17:30 | Wall-to-wall | Open on floss.social

3 comments

Taggart :donor:

@webbureaucrat @mwl That is not how I read the conclusion. It acknowledges the influence of money and the potential upheaval, but does not conclude in any way that IANA is unlikely to apply its own rules.

8 October at 17:31 | Open on infosec.exchange

webbureaucrat

@mttaggart @mwl

I didn't say the article says IANA is "unlikely" to apply its own rules. What I said is that the article says IANA "might" not, and it is true that it says that:

> The IANA may fudge its own rules and allow .io to continue to exist. Money talks, and there is a lot of it tied up in .io domains.

This contradicts the beginning of the article which says it "will" not allow .io to continue to exist.

8 October at 17:36 | Open on floss.social

Taggart :donor:

@webbureaucrat @mwl Fair enough. I've made what I think is a reasonable amendment.

8 October at 17:37 | Open on infosec.exchange