<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 7/23/2012 2:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh3tRtEyV75O1RkHA-fcb5G=OXtbjOE7U1KjceLxpin8Yw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">The kind of issue people in ALAC were responding to
were the short-term scam sites such as "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redcrosshaitirelief.com">redcrosshaitirelief.com</a>",
ones that specifically used the charity's name (specifically its
conventional Internet 2LD names) inside bogus 2LD strings. As I
mentioned in the earlier email, there's also agreement that
nothing is special about the Red Cross in this regard, I would
consider "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://unicefhaitifelief.org">unicefhaitifelief.org</a>"
or "<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://oxfamhaitirelief.net">oxfamhaitirelief.net</a>"
to be just as bad.</blockquote>
<br>
What happens to redcross.haitirelief.com? That does not even need
the intervention of a registrar, and I don't think the average user
will greatly distinguish between the two....Also, can someone please
explain why this issue is being raised in the context of new TLDs if
everyone agrees the latter do nothing substantial to change the risk
of phishing in this context?<br>
<br>
On 7/23/2012 1:54 PM, David Cake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:3914F13A-93A7-4D13-B656-DA2AB64D416A@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">it seems to me, from discussions with the charities, that the <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>real<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> solution that the charities need (and not just the ICRC, with its unique legal protections, but ANY charity) is basically a takedown solution like those provided by the APWG etc.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Notice takedown regimes seem to do more to exacerbate misuses of IP
than they do to actually ameliorate phishing, fraud or actual IP
violations. The current UDRP already provides for expedited
(relative to court) remedies, does it not?<br>
<br>
On 7/23/2012 1:21 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh3ppmbrQ-pjirG9CikLw3g32qU8N_vTEEdRQpzEm9yXOg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">However, a complete response of "do nothing,
everything's OK" may indicate an ICANN that is insensitive to the
public consequences of its policies</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think anyone is saying 'everything's OK', I think people are
saying it is unlikely that ICANN can provide any more effective
remedy to the situation without causing greater harm than good. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tamir<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>