[cabfpub] Possible CAB Forum objection to some gTLD applications

[Gervase Markham]

On 29/06/12 14:58, Jon Callas wrote:
> We might be able to claim standing on a few of them -- I could argue
> standing on .corp on the grounds that we secure internal networks
> that rightly or wrongly use .corp to identify resources. The obvious,
> correct remedy would be to ask to delay by three years (or possibly
> file) starting from some time in the near future, not the year or
> three it's going to take for them to create these new TLDs. 

I think a more obvious correct remedy would be to reserve a set of TLDs
for "internal use", including .corp.

> I think
> it would have force as a comment, especially since we could make an
> out-of-band appeal to people who are at ICANN.

I agree. We should start with that.

> Is that something we'd be interested in? I can imagine that there'd
> be a counter-comment coming back that says that if we told them what
> had been issued, they could block those domains within .corp.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest such a
non-scalable solution. And anyway, the .corp owner would not take kindly
to receiving regular communications from CAs saying "and here's another
200 names you can't offer to your customers".

> Another alternative would be for a lot of us to just blog about it,
> saying that it's a bad idea.

That too! :-)

Gerv