[UA-discuss] UA and phishiness

Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Thu Apr 26 18:42:05 UTC 2018

On 4/26/2018 10:36 AM, Richard Merdinger 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?

My take is that you cannot separate a charter to get everyone to support 
all domains equally from getting all domains to be equally worthy of 

At some point, you'll just replace "structural" barriers to acceptance 
by black and gray lists.

In my personal life, I run a small forum, and there I cheerfully ban 
access from any TLDs and IP addresses not based in the US and a small 
number of selected countries. Spam magically goes to zero and my (local) 
audience is not affected. Pretty draconian black list (or white list, 
actually), but I don't have the time to waste on accepting and cleaning 
up after garbage.

Extreme, perhaps, but I think this group ignores the potential 
costs/risks of universal acceptance at its peril.

"Poor anti-abuse stance" should not be rewarded with acceptance.

> 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

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list