“Risky” gTLDs could be sacrificed to avoid delay
Google and other members of the New gTLD Applicant Group are happy to let ICANN put their applications on hold in response to security concerns raised by Verisign.
During the ICANN 46 Public Forum in Durban on Thursday, NTAG’s Alex Stamos — CTO of .secure applicant Artemis — said that agreement had been reached that about half a dozen applications could be delayed:
NTAG has consensus that we are willing to allow these small numbers of TLDs that have a significant real risk to be delayed until technical implementations can be put in place. There’s going to be no objection from the NTAG on that.
While he didn’t name the strings, he was referring to gTLDs such as .home and .corp, which were highlighted earlier in the week as having large amounts of error traffic at the DNS root.
There’s a worry, originally expressed by Verisign in April and independent consultant Interisle this week, that collisions between new gTLDs and widely-used internal network names will lead to data leakage and other security problems.
Google’s Jordyn Buchanan also took the mic at the Public Forum to say that Google will gladly put its uncontested application for .ads — which Interisle says gets over 5 million root queries a day — on hold until any security problems are mitigated.
Two members of the board described Stamos’ proposal as “reasonable”.
Both Stamos and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade indirectly criticised Verisign for the PR campaign it has recently built around its new gTLD security concerns, which has led to somewhat one-sided articles in the tech press and mainstream media such as the Washington Post.
Stamos said:
What we do object to is the use of the risk posed by a small, tiny, tiny fraction — my personal guess would be six, seven, eight possible name spaces that have any real impact — to then tar the entire project with a big brush. For contracted parties to go out to the Washington Post and plant stories about the 911 system not working because new TLDs are turned on is completely irresponsible and is clearly not about fixing the internet but is about undermining the internet and undermining new gTLDs.
Later, in response to comments on the same topic from the Association of National Advertisers, which suggested that emergency services could fail if new gTLDs go live, Chehade said:
Creating an unnecessary alarm is equally irresponsible… as publicly responsible members of one community, let’s measure how much alarm we raise. And in the trademark case, with all due respect it ended up, frankly, not looking good for anyone at the end.
That’s a reference to the ANA’s original campaign against new gTLDs, which wound up producing not much more than a lot of column inches about an utterly pointless Congressional hearing in late 2011.
Chehade and the ANA representative this time agreed publicly to work together on better terms.
Recent Comments
SO what you are saying is most don't defend, but when they do its expensive and they win. So in most cases the ones that... read more
It is still in their Universal Terms of Service: "GoDaddy also reserves the right to charge you reasonable “administr... read more
In point of fact, several registrars charge their customers an administrative fee for handling UDRP disputes. -----... read more
The idea of having respondents pay $500 has a couple of flaws. First, in many of these dead-on cases the respondent n... read more
Respondents also incur an economic cost when due to a UDRP process with multiple layers of bias in favor of TM interests... read more
"Registrants, on the other hand, pay only for their own defence, if any." Mr. Wood ignores the fact that domain regis... read more
The key factor in the decision was a "Teflon survey" demonstrating that 75% of consumers associated booking.com with a p... read more
Page, see a separate comment below where I basically expanded on your statement, and presented an example where such a d... read more
The "answer" if you want to use a domain that contains "booking.com" for the same service offering is to leave the ".com... read more
The "answer" if you want to use a domain that contains "booking.com" for the same service offering is to leave the ".com... read more