[UA-discuss] UA and phishiness

[Dirk Bhagat]

Personally I have always believed these two areas to be deeply connected -
and  many new TLDs like Club and others have pretty strong anti-abuse
standards.
Asking system administrators to bake in acceptance for new TLDs but then
not being able to address the abuse issue - rings hollow for a lot of
admins.
I would certainly be in favour of expanding the mandate to include a view
on abuse etc.


--
Dirk Bhagat

CoFounder, CTO
.CLUB DOMAINS LLC.
100 SE 3rd Ave, Suite 1310
Fort Lauderdale, Fl, 33394
o: 954.530.2580 m: 416.839.4945
Get.club <http://www.get.club>

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Richard Merdinger <rmerdinger at godaddy.com>
wrote:

> Andrew,
> I get the connection, but I think that this is adjacent to our remit as
> opposed to part of it.
>
> Other thoughts on this?
>
> Richard Merdinger
> VP, Domains
> rmerdinger at godaddy.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: April 26, 2018 12:34 PM
> To: ua-discuss at icann.org
> Subject: [UA-discuss] UA and phishiness
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm in a meeting about the web PKI and there's a discussion about how poor
> the anti-abuse stance is of some new TLDs. Does UASG have a view about
> this?  Should it?
>
> A
>
> --
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20180426/bcdf75df/attachment.html>