On 7/23/2012 2:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">The kind of issue people in ALAC were responding to were the short-term scam sites such as "redcrosshaitirelief.com", 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 "unicefhaitifelief.org" or "oxfamhaitirelief.net" to be just as bad.

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?

On 7/23/2012 1:54 PM, David Cake wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

it seems to me, from discussions with the charities, that the *real* 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.

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?

On 7/23/2012 1:21 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

[log in to unmask]" 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

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.

Best,
Tamir