[UA-discuss] UA and phishiness

[Andrew Sullivan]

I guess I was wondering whether the SG wants to say that b is fine but c is 
a bad idea. It sounds like the SG _does_ think that, but I can't find it on 
the site yet :-)

--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums
----------
On April 26, 2018 13:08:22 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >