Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD

[Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner () nic-naa net>]

On 5/31/12 10:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the
> > > woodwork when they start trying to enforce their provisions. "What? I
> > > have already printed my letterhead! What do you mean my busted DKIM
> > > service is a problem?"
> History suggests that the problem will be the opposite.  They will
> find that the number of registrations is an order of magnitude less
> than their worst case estimate (a problem that every domain added in
> the past decade has had), and they will make the rules ever looser to
> try to gather more registrations and appease their financial backers
> until it's yet another meaningless generic TLD.

agree.

> For concrete examples, see what happened to .AERO, .TRAVEL, .PRO, and

start with .biz as its re-purposing occurred first.

> of course the race to the bottom of first regular SSL certificates,
> and now green bar certificates.
>
> What might be useful would be .BANK, with both security rules and
> limited registrations to actual banks.  Identifying banks is
> relatively* easy, since you can use the lists of entities that
> national bank regulators regulate.

agree. proposed by core. opposed by aba.

> R's,
> John
>
> * - I said relatively, not absolutely.

even within the financial services industry, useful taxonomies exist,
e.g., ethical banks, islamic banks, depositor owned cooperative banks,
... again, proposed by core. opposed by aba. and you _were_ on the
high security generic top-level domain working group where you pushed
for anti-spamdom and i for forms of "more secure banking".

-e