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

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