[cabfpub] Possible CAB Forum objection to some gTLD applications
Rick_Andrews at symantec.com
Thu Jun 28 16:42:49 UTC 2012
I suggest we still try to gather the info. It was also mentioned during the face-to-face that if CAs are uncomfortable giving info to me, a competitor, they could give it to Brad from Paypal.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:34 AM
> To: public at cabforum.org
> Subject: [cabfpub] Possible CAB Forum objection to some gTLD applications
> During the face-to-face meeting, it was suggested that the CAB Forum
> might like to make a submission to ICANN objecting to certain gTLD
> applications, on the basis that they are already widely used for
> internal networks and that this would be a security risk. ".corp" was
> suggested as one potential TLD which is widely used internally.
> (CAs are reminded that they are requested to search their issuance
> databases and compile statistics about the prevalence of these
> internal-use suffixes, and send the results to Rick Andrews for collation.)
> Here's the bad news. The objection procedure is here:
> - There are only four narrow grounds under which one can object to an
> - You need to have standing of a particular sort to file an objection.
> - It costs lots of money to file and prosecute an objection. It depends
> on the grounds, but we are probably talking €17,000 for a "Limited
> Public Interest" filing.
> - You have to file a separate objection to each application, so e.g. if
> we wanted to object to the delegation of ".corp", we would need to
> file 6 objections!
> This is the most undemocratic and inaccessible bit of internet
> governance I have ever seen.
> We can "make a comment", but that has much less force than an objection.
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
More information about the Public