[ispcp] New gTLD overarching issue - malicious conduct

[Anthony Harris]

I have to disagree with Jaime on this. It is an attempt to delay the
application process further. Conditioning the roll-out of new gTLDs
to a renewed overarching issue is more of the same - some parties
simply do not want new gTLDs to happen...

Tony
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jaime Plug In 
  To: 'Tonyarholmes at btinternet.com' ; ispcp at icann.org 
  Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 9:33 AM
  Subject: RES: [ispcp] New gTLD overarching issue - malicious conduct


  Tony and all,

   

  My personal opinion is that this is THE main overarching issue since the beginning. One that has been, in my opinion, overlooked and poorly considered.

  I endorse the letter in its general terms, but would like to see the specific wording.

   

   

  Jaime Wagner
  jaime at corp.plugin.com.br
  Cel (51) 8126-0916
  Fax (51) 3123-1708

   

  De: owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
  Enviada em: quinta-feira, 1 de julho de 2010 08:27
  Para: ispcp at icann.org
  Assunto: [ispcp] New gTLD overarching issue - malicious conduct

   

  All members of the ISPCP

  It has been proposed within the CSG Executive that the CSG leadership send a joint letter from the three constituencies expressing major concern over the overarching issue of malicious conduct  related to the introduction of gTLDS. As discussed during the Brussels meeting one of the problems is that the high security zone program is purely voluntary.  The IPC in particular has said there still needs to be some way to raise an objection that a particular application that does not meet the "voluntary" program poses real problems, the example that's been used is .kids.

  The other view that appears to be held by ICANN is that malicious conduct as an overarching issues is now done. 

   

  It's worth stating that the HSTLD advisory group is still working hard (although  down to a very small group of people) on some fundamental principles that still have to work out (like who these rules would apply to (registry, registrar, registrant). But that does not take away the concerns raised in some quarters that  this is an optional program, is not tied to the new GTLD rollout, and even whether it will actually make a TLD more secure.

   

  The issue I would like your feedback on is whether it's appropriate for the ISPCP executive to add their support to this letter. A number of times during the Brussels meeting I heard ISPs making the point that further delays to the gTLD program would not be supported, so there is a balance to strike. Certainly if its argued that the issues around malicious conduct are still unresolved, then effectively we are accepting the need for additional delay.

   

  Please provide feedback and comments on whether the ISPCP should offer support for the view that the malicious conduct issue is not resolved to a satisfactory level and more work is required before ICANN can push ahead with the gTLD program.

   

   If as a result of your response we require a conference call to discuss this further, that will be arranged. However this is urgent and requires a quick answer.

   

  Many thanks

   

  Tony

   

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20100701/4d255d01/attachment.html>