On 4/26/2018 10:36 AM, Richard Merdinger 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?
My take is that you cannot separate a charter to get everyone to support all domains equally from getting all domains to be equally worthy of support. At some point, you'll just replace "structural" barriers to acceptance by black and gray lists. In my personal life, I run a small forum, and there I cheerfully ban access from any TLDs and IP addresses not based in the US and a small number of selected countries. Spam magically goes to zero and my (local) audience is not affected. Pretty draconian black list (or white list, actually), but I don't have the time to waste on accepting and cleaning up after garbage. Extreme, perhaps, but I think this group ignores the potential costs/risks of universal acceptance at its peril. "Poor anti-abuse stance" should not be rewarded with acceptance. A./
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