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@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@godaddy.com
-----Original Message----- From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: April 26, 2018 12:34 PM To: ua-discuss@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