[UA-discuss] UA and phishiness

Roberto Gaetano roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 26 19:08:12 UTC 2018

I am not sure I understand the issue.
Is this about:
a.	.yellow is blocked by decision of a government that is run by the Blue party, while the Yellow party is banned
b.	.orange  is blocked because of the high level of spam, scam, or whatever other “illegal” activities (with all the caveats that “illegal” means)
c.	.pink is not recognised as a valid TLD (whatever the algorithm is for deciding what a “valid” TLD is
IMHO, only the latter case is relevant for us - although it would be useful to keep an eye on the other two, just to see what the impact is on user experience. After all, the user who cannot access a site or send an email does not necessarily know whether this is due to a. b. c. or other.

> On 26.04.2018, at 20:08, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Well, to be clear, the point of the discussion I'm in is around automatic blacklisting of everything in a "shady" TLD.
> --
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums
> ----------
> On April 26, 2018 11:36:44 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

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list