[HN Gopher] UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius
___________________________________________________________________
UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius
Author : andystanton
Score : 113 points
Date : 2024-10-03 10:43 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| zarzavat wrote:
| Did they agree who will get the the .io ccTLD? Or is that up to
| ICANN?
| corobo wrote:
| I have no answers - just a note there's another discussion
| regarding .io here if anyone wants more readin'
|
| Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the
| Chagos Islands? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526
| rafram wrote:
| The British Indian Ocean Territory is probably better known in
| the tech world for its top-level domain: .io.
| exdsq wrote:
| Which is owned by a hedge fund, and thankfully not part of this
| deal (so it's not at risk!)
| Scoundreller wrote:
| What are some new countries we can create so we end up with a
| cool TLD?
|
| There's gotta be someone willing to fund this.
| ezfe wrote:
| It being owned by a hedge fund doesn't change the fact that
| ICAAN policies will retire the ccTLD.
|
| Whether they choose to NOT APPLY those policies is a
| different matter that, again, isn't changed by who owns it
| but instead by use.
| toyg wrote:
| It might well be at risk.
|
| Extensive discussion here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526
|
| TL;DR: ICANN policy forces deletion if CC disappears from the
| ISO list of countries, with one famous exception (.su); but
| Mauritius could cut a Tuvalu-style deal to maintain it.
| lolinder wrote:
| TLD "owners" own TLDs in much the same way that we own
| domains, and it's very possible that ICANN phases out the .io
| domain when the British Indian Ocean Territory ceases to
| exist. From what we gathered in the other thread it somewhat
| depends on what ISO decides to do with its codes.
|
| At a minimum I expect that control over the .io domain will
| go to Mauritius and they'll be able to reassign it as desired
| (since they never contracted with the hedge fund). But the
| typical path for a code when its country goes defunct is to
| get phased out.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| The more I think about it, the more I agree that this is
| the likely outcome.
|
| IO has been in the ISO standard forever, so there's plenty
| of historical precedent (like UK). Furthermore, it
| continues to be descriptive of a specific part of the world
| (like SU). The easy move here is for the ISO committee to
| mark IO as exceptionally reserved, for ICANN to declare
| that this of course makes it a special historical case
| which sets no precedent, and for everything to continue
| mostly as usual.
|
| This assumes, of course, that ICANN aren't looking to make
| some kind of example/statement about misuse of ccTLDs. If
| they are, things may be different.
| ksec wrote:
| What does this means in terms of global politics and US having a
| base there?
|
| I also assume .io no longer being controlled by UK? ( Which is
| somewhat worrying )
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > What does this means in terms of global politics and US
| having a base there?
|
| Absolutely nothing. The US still has a base on the island of
| Cuba [0], they aren't giving up Diego Garcia.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
| ossobuco wrote:
| > US still has a base on the island of Cuba
|
| Ah, you mean the illegal torture prison against which the
| Cuban government has been protesting since 1959.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Sure. It's still there though, 65 years later.
|
| The US will go where it pleases and do what it wants, just
| like the great European empires of the 17th through 19th
| centuries. Sure it's Amazon and Google rather than an East
| India Company, but it's the same themes.
| pbiggar wrote:
| > The remaining British overseas territories are: Anguilla,
| Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Virgin Islands,
| Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat,
| Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South
| Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.
| There are also two sovereign base areas on Cyprus under British
| jurisdiction.
|
| Good note at the end
| hermitcrab wrote:
| And quite a few of those in shady financial dealings. Happily
| hiding and laundering money for various kleptocrats. It has
| been noted that, just as the Roman Empire didn't really
| disappear - it became a church, the British Empire didn't
| really disappear - it became a bank.
|
| The British government likes to make various noises about
| cleaning this up, but there are too many businesses in the City
| of London making money off the system for there to be much
| chance of that happening.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| > the Roman Empire didn't really disappear - it became a
| church, the British Empire didn't really disappear - it
| became a bank.
|
| Great quip!
| krapp wrote:
| I recommend the Behind the Bastards series "How the British
| Empire and U.S. DoD Murdered an Island Paradise" about the Chagos
| islands for deeper context.
| janice1999 wrote:
| See also "How the British Empire and U.S. Department of Defense
| Murdered an Island Paradise" ... "the story of the Chagos
| Islands, a paradise founded by former slaves that was wiped out
| by the British empire so they could lease it to the U.S. as an
| air base" [1]
|
| [1] https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-
| bastards-29236...
| itohihiyt wrote:
| I'm unaware of the details but wasn't the island chain sold to
| the British?
| matthewmorgan wrote:
| Some countries have constitutions that forbid giving up any parts
| of its territory, but apparently our government can hand over
| sovereignty without even a vote in parliament
| jplrssn wrote:
| The UN General Assembly and various UN courts have ruled that
| the UK had no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the first
| place.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126
| matthewmorgan wrote:
| Irrelevant.
| Maxatar wrote:
| Maybe to you, but not to the UK government.
| SllX wrote:
| The UK has a permanent seat on the UNSC including the
| ultimate single-member veto and on the sliding scale of
| fiction to non-fiction, international law is a lot closer
| to the fictional end. The UK choosing to transfer
| sovereignty to another country is not in-line with a
| ruling that says they don't have sovereignty. They've
| chosen to be done with this controversy.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The UN General Assembly is little more than an opinion poll,
| legally speaking.
| 10xalphadev wrote:
| The UN is relevant how? Anyway, UK did the right thing,
| though. Now get rid of that US hegemony-supporting base.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Without going into the sentiment of this, I suppose Chaos
| Islands are not part of the _United Kingdom_ but rather an
| overseas territory, so more like "property", to put it
| bluntly. I guess the government can just give away a building
| it owns, and this is more analogous than giving away
| "territory". And there is no current indigenous population
| there either.
|
| But yeah, Jersey is also an overseas territory, can the
| government just give that away?
| Maxatar wrote:
| The United Kingdom has parliamentary supremacy with little to
| no checks or balances, so if the parliament wants to give
| away something, there is nothing that can really stop them.
| SllX wrote:
| Jersey is a Crown Dependency, not an Overseas Territory. They
| share a King and the UK is responsible for their defense, but
| domestically Crown Dependencies are more independent of
| Parliament than your average British overseas territory.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Ok, fair point. Can the UK hand over Bermuda, or Cayman
| isles?
|
| I vaguely remember handing over the Falkland Islands to
| Argentina was actually on the cards before the invasion, so
| perhaps surprisingly the answer is "yes".
| Maxatar wrote:
| While I was downvoted my answer is correct. The UK
| parliament can and has ceded territory and all that is
| required is an act of parliament.
|
| It seems like people forget that the UK ceded everything
| from Ireland which was a UK constituent as opposed to a
| UK subject as well as Canada, Australia, India and
| numerous other territories.
|
| In the UK, parliament is supreme and has the final
| authority.
| forinti wrote:
| Which highlights how stupid the war was. Argentina should
| have invested in a better relationship with the islands.
| They would all be speaking Spanish by now.
| threemux wrote:
| I'm assuming all this is contingent on a treaty vote in
| Parliament? I'm not familiar with how it works in the UK
| Maxatar wrote:
| Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this, but the
| Prime Minister of the UK has approved it and unlike in the
| US., in the UK votes are predominantly along party lines so
| it will pass.
| threemux wrote:
| And it can be approved with a bare majority?
| SilverBirch wrote:
| Bare majority, and with our whipping system and current
| parliament (massive one party domination) it will go
| through with ease. It has to go through the House of
| Lords too, and the current government don't have a real
| majority there but they're extremely reticent to oppose
| the democratically elected house so it'll likely sail
| through there too.
| atvrager wrote:
| Can I visit the world you're in, where votes in US Congress
| aren't predominantly along party lines?
| atq2119 wrote:
| Yeah, the real difference is that in the US, there is a
| separate election for president. In the UK, as in many
| other countries, the party that wins parliament gets to
| form the government (and determine the prime minister or
| whatever the title of the de facto head of the executive
| is). In some countries this is complicated by multiparty
| systems where coalitions are required, but the general
| idea of aligning the legislative and executive branches
| in this way is fairly common.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this
|
| Not the case. The executive makes treaties. Parliament can
| scrutinise them but has no general ratification or veto
| role. See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-
| briefings/cbp-... .
| cherryteastain wrote:
| The Parliament being sovereign, it can pass an act about
| anything. It could certainly pass an act forbidding the
| government from ceding territory to a foreign power.
| However, since the current government holds a majority in
| parliament, in practice it won't happen.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| In the UK the executive (ie "the government") makes and
| ratifies treaties, using delegated authority [1] from the
| monarch.
|
| There is no general rule that parliament has to ratify, or
| even scrutinise, a treaty. The main exceptions are if the
| treaty requires domestic legislation to be passed by
| parliament, or if the treaty has significant constitutionap
| implications. Given our un-codified constitution here in the
| UK, I would imagine the latter constaint comes with some
| wriggle-room.
|
| This [2] briefing by the House of Commons Library lays it all
| out.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Un
| ite...
|
| [2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-
| briefings/cbp-...
| bpodgursky wrote:
| > African nations began to speak with one voice on the issue,
| pushing the UK hard on the issue of decolonialisation.
|
| I wish the journalists had a little more sophistication on this.
| African nations began to push the UK on this because China and
| Russia understand that Diego Garcia is a critical port, and made
| investment + aid/ bribery + weapons (China / Russia respectively)
| conditional on forcing the issue.
| exdsq wrote:
| I believe we will keep the port there with the US?
| mppm wrote:
| Huh? I had the impression that the entire international
| community (sans UK, US & Israel) has been pushing for this for
| years, and quite insistently since the 2021 ITLOS judgement.
| Also, the US will keep it's base as part of the settlement.
| gottorf wrote:
| It would be naive to believe that the Chinese will not build
| a competing naval base there, and encroach upon Mauritius's
| sovereignty over time.
| mppm wrote:
| Apart from this being pure speculation, where exactly would
| they build it? The archipelago has a _tiny_ land area and
| the only atoll suitable for building a base is kinda
| already taken... Also, the primary strategic importance of
| Diego Garcia is to support US operations in the Middle
| East, where China has never interfered to any significant
| extent.
| chilmers wrote:
| Also, wouldn't the US and UK insist on a clause in the
| treaty that Mauritius can't do this?
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| You could say the same about the South China Sea before
| the Chinese started building islands out there.
| fmajid wrote:
| They already have a base in Djibouti which is far more
| useful.
| toyg wrote:
| I'd like to see your sources on this.
|
| I expect it's a bit simpler than that: anti-colonial policies
| resonate deeply with African voters, and are very
| uncontroversial.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| African voters, to the extent that they have any vote at all
| [1], have vastly more important things to care about than a
| tiny island in the Indian ocean. I would in fact bet a lot of
| money that vastly fewer than 1% of African voters, in any
| country, know about the Chagos Islands at all.
|
| [1] Mostly, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Af
| rica#/media/Fil...
| toyg wrote:
| Yeah but when $dictator shows up on tv and talks about
| figthing $bloodyColonialists at the UN, it's
| uncontroversial (regardless of the issue being fought) and
| takes time from talking about his
| embezzlement/corruption/etc.
|
| Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they can go cap in hand to
| $bloodyColonialists and ask "do you want me to shut up?
| Give me $something".
|
| This requires no shadowy influence from this or that
| supposed Great Power.
| mmooss wrote:
| Where is some evidence of this version of the story?
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Ah yes, because the UK has no agency and clearly hasn't shown
| itself to be very okay at standing up against Russia for
| example.
| aguaviva wrote:
| In other words: The African nations have no agency or
| legitimate motivations of their own, and are just doing what
| China and Russia bully them to do. Apparently they don't even
| appreciate the significance of the military base on those
| islands. It is left for the adults in the room (Russia and
| China) to think and operate on such a level.
|
| Of course no one here is naive, and we all know already that
| external operators have their influence, and (though the
| commenter provides no evidence) it's certainly possible, likely
| even, that such influence came into play here to some degree.
|
| Nonetheless, the commenter's phrasing and implicit attitude
| toward these nations seems weirdly patronizing and, well,
| colonial.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Interestingly this includes the military base of Diego Garcia
| which is strategically important. I imagine the US will pay
| Mauritius a bucket load of money for continued use.
| zie wrote:
| I imagine ALL of this was hinging on some long term agreement
| where the US gets to keep Diego Garcia.
| qingcharles wrote:
| It seems the US are continuing to pay the UK and the UK is
| buying off Mauritius.
| avinash wrote:
| I'm a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius and, when this news
| was announced today, there was a general sense of relief.
|
| Mauritius has been fighting for its sovereignty over the Chagos
| Archipelago (with Diego Garcia being the largest island) for 56
| years.
|
| Today, the Chagos Archipelago is part of Mauritius again and a
| treaty will (hopefully) soon be signed between the UK and
| Mauritius.
|
| From there, Mauritius will sign a lease agreement of 99 years
| with the USA so that the military base there can continue to
| operate.
|
| Of course, there will surely be a lot of money involved but we
| don't have the details yet.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _From there, Mauritius will sign a lease agreement of 99
| years with the USA so that the military base there can continue
| to operate._
|
| Seems to be a lease with the UK (which then 'sub-leases' to the
| US?):
|
| * https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-agrees-chagos-
| island-s...
|
| Curious to know if there will be extension provisions: people
| think 99 years is a long time (which isn't wrong), but Hong
| Kong went back to China after that period of time.
| avinash wrote:
| Possibly. The treaty has not been signed yet.
|
| Things will become clearer in the coming weeks.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Legally that makes the most sense as it leaves everything
| where it is. The whole place is a weird combination of US/UK
| culture and standards.
| connicpu wrote:
| It's easier to move a single military base at the end of a
| lease than an entire country
| mmooss wrote:
| AFAIK, the US and UK value Diego Garcia because currently
| there aren't geographical alternatives for that base. Where
| else could they put it that would have the same benefits?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| There are multiple islands and archipelagos in the
| region.
|
| Close to Africa/ME: Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros,
| Mayotte
|
| Close to SE Asia: Cocos and Christmas Island
|
| Diego Garcia just happened to be forcibly depopulated by
| the British, so was a convenient choice.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Close to Africa/ME: Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros,
| Mayotte Close to SE Asia: Cocos and Christmas
| Island
|
| That's the whole point of Diego Garcia: It's not "close
| to" anywhere, and it's nearly in the middle of a bunch of
| places. That's what give it its strategic importance.
| mmooss wrote:
| I mean, what current option is equivalent to Diego
| Garcia? Are any of those options realistic right now?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic
| landscape then is pretty much unknowable.
|
| To a 1925 (99 years _ago_ ) military force, the Diego
| Garcia airfield would have had zero importance.
| mmooss wrote:
| I wonder if they would have anticipated its value. I can
| anticipate a moon base would be valuable in 2123 even
| though it has little present value.
| scottLobster wrote:
| Yeah, but Mauritius isn't China. If the UK had reneged on the
| Hong Kong lease, there were economic and military options for
| China to potentially enforce it.
|
| A lot can happen in 99 years, but even assuming a serious
| decline in US economic/military might I don't see a scenario
| where Mauritius could successfully enforce the lease on its
| own.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Mauritius isn't China today. In 99 years time it could be
| part of a China. Or a future country that is more powerful
| than China.
| thefounder wrote:
| Well someone more powerful would not care about the lease
| agreements anyway so if the U.S can't fight back the
| lease agreement won't help them anyway. See Russia-
| Ukcraine and the agreements that were signed. They are
| not worth their paper
| simonh wrote:
| If the treaty is UK law, they can take the case to UK
| courts. It's not guaranteed to work, it depends on the
| legal technicalities, but the government has no say in the
| findings of UK courts.
|
| A lot can happen in 99 years, but as Hong Kong shows, the
| UK has a decent track record on long term legal continuity.
| hinkley wrote:
| How does this affect fishing territory and economic zones for
| Mauritius?
| mmooss wrote:
| Congratulations! Would you be willing to go into more depth on
| why you feel relieved? You've spelled out the terms; I'm asking
| if you might connect the dots between those terms and your
| feelings about the whole thing.
|
| Also, are you concerned that Diego Garcia might be a target in
| a war?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos
| Archipelago?
|
| Is it just because a lot of Chagossians went to Mauritius after
| getting kicked out? Obviously Mauritius and Chagos were ruled
| by the same people previous (French, then British), but is
| there a deeper history there?
|
| I ask this because the Chagos archipelago is like 1500 miles
| away from Mauritius - the Maldives, Seychelles, and even Sri
| Lanka and India are all closer than that. And to my untrained
| eye, the Chagos archipelago looks like an extension of whatever
| process created the Maldives.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| Yeah...
|
| As long as the US and the UK is allowed to operate their military
| bases and operations without any protest or quibble for the next
| 100 years and probably more. Have some spare change instead of
| too much sovereignty.
|
| And remember the military bases are US and UK soil and whatever
| goes on there can keep going on whatever laws may or may not be
| passed.
|
| Just like how the US maintains a military base, camp (now not
| very busy at the moment) concentration camp in the communist
| country of Cuba.
| 10xalphadev wrote:
| This. The US hegemon is everywhere it shouldn't be. And no one
| stands up. Well, we'll see what happens after UA.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> There, the UK will ensure operation of the military base for
| "an initial period" of 99 years._
|
| Taking bets on how much surface area of this atoll will still be
| above water in 2123.
| dang wrote:
| Related ongoing thread:
|
| _Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the
| Chagos Islands?_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526
| - Oct 2024 (153 comments)
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I imagine whoever got the 99 year lease is feeling pretty pleased
| about it - that's basically forever as far as they can tell.
|
| On the other hand, I bet the UK in 1997 would have hoped for a
| longer lease on Hong Kong.
| khuey wrote:
| Sea level rise may mean that a 99 year lease is longer than the
| island will be habitable.
| tightbookkeeper wrote:
| I'll take that bet.
| morkalork wrote:
| You should move to Nantucket island then, lots of prime
| real-estate there
| itsoktocry wrote:
| The real estate in Nantucket is extremely expensive, how
| does this comment make sense?
| thehappypm wrote:
| Erm, even if the coast is flooded, Mauritius is a big island
| with plenty of land well above sea level.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| The discussion is about Diego Garcia.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Also decreased oil consumption as a result of renewable
| energy sources (decreasing the Middle East's importance) and
| climate change opening up northern shipping routes
| (decreasing the SE Asia - Suez Canal importance).
|
| In 99 years, being able to exert influence in the region will
| likely be less important to global trade.
| ta1243 wrote:
| At what point does sea level rise remove a countries EEZ
| claim.
|
| Seems that it's a real issue --
| https://www.reuters.com/investigations/sinking-tuvalu-
| fights...
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Probably not. In 1997 they were happy to court the $$
| associated with opening up this huge new market of 1b+ "middle
| class" consumers.
|
| Id argue they still aren't sufficiently butthurt about it. The
| UK has sufficient grounds to reclaim HK since china has very
| much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong
| democratic for at least 50 years. I guess that's why the CPC
| goes on gaslighting rants about "whole process democracy" like
| Jesus CPC. You just had to wait 20 years, what the hell is the
| rush?
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| I think China is increasingly driven by the ego of Xi Jinping
| and not the internal machinations of party politics.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| He is 71 and getting older.
|
| A lot of crazy things look more reasonable when you've had
| absolute power for a decade and aren't overly concerned
| about consequences in 20 years.
| dangus wrote:
| I think it's a mistake to give in to the temptation to
| jump to the conclusion that China is a tunnel-vision cult
| of personality everything-the-crazy-dictator-wants-he-
| gets government.
|
| The Chinese government under Xi has a well-established
| track record of long-term planning that has done nothing
| but elevated China's status and leverage in the world.
|
| It really couldn't be further from (e.g.) Putin's style
| of governance.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Even if they were legally entitled to reclaim it under law, I
| don't see the British re-invading China at this point.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| One of the reasons UK didn't contest it in 1997 was that it
| couldn't. UK "owned" Hong Kong island, which is a tiny bit of
| territory. Most of what is called Hong Kong was actually
| leased from China for a definite term, and the lease was
| coming to an end, fair and square. Hong Kong island was
| handed over as part of the package.
|
| Hong Kong island is, I would imagine, in no way sustainable
| as a standalone territory, if China were to be hostile.
| epanchin wrote:
| Based on the UKs failure to retake HK despite the broken
| agreement, how long do you think that base will be there?
|
| They could take it back whenever they wanted and we'd do
| nothing.
| dangus wrote:
| In what universe does the UK have grounds to have anything to
| do with governing a region 6000 miles away from home that it
| seized during the Opium War?
|
| I would love for China to have democracy, but Great Britain
| really doesn't have any moral high ground on the issue nor
| any business having anything to do with the government there.
|
| If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd
| counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about
| it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to
| invade or something?
|
| They can write a nastygram or something but any of the
| promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing. An
| analogy would be asking the next owner of your car to not
| play any Britney Spears on the radio. Good luck enforcing
| that.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep
| hong kong democratic
|
| That would be a curious failure indeed given that Hong Kong
| wasn't democratic under the British to begin with. It was a
| crown colony ruled by an appointed governor. The Brits of
| course never had any legitimate claim to an island they took
| after a war whose objective was to force opium into China. If
| they still have dreams of empire I'm sure China would be
| delighted to see them try though and see how it goes this
| time.
| p_l wrote:
| I've seen few mentions that PRC actually expected UK to extend
| the lease, and was surprised when UK didn't...
| jowea wrote:
| Even if that lease was permanent I doubt the PRC would just let
| it be. The time limit just meant they could just wait instead
| of having to negotiate or invade.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Hong Kong island was ceded to the British in perpetuity. The 99
| years lease of the New Territories (not Hong Kong, technically)
| was an additional unequal treaty that the Qing were forced into
| on top of it, after they also had to give up Kowloon. The
| British could have asked for 150 years too, who'd have stopped
| them?
|
| Now the same happens to Britain in reverse. There is no benefit
| for any state to give up territory for nothing in return, why
| would they be "pretty pleased" about it? Also not only is
| Britain ceding its territory but they're actually paying rent
| to keep a base on what was previously their own land! It almost
| feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't
| sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own.
| See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're
| obsessed with this number:
|
| https://ceylontoday.lk/2023/08/31/over-1200-acres-of-sri-lan...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-says-no...
|
| https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/25/asia-pacific/ch...
| saaaaaam wrote:
| Worth reading Kevin Murphy's piece here:
|
| https://domainincite.com/30395-future-of-io-domains-uncertai...
|
| He's a long time commentator on the domain industry and very
| inciteful. But also quite insightful.
| Cyclone_ wrote:
| I had never heard of it until now, but it looks similar to parts
| of the Marshall Islands in that there are very narrow strips of
| land.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-03 23:00 UTC)