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@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@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@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