[At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
evan at telly.org
Sat Nov 5 00:48:01 UTC 2016
On 5 November 2016 at 01:14, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> For that purpose they need not come to ICANN for protection; they already
> have the tools they need - digital certificates from the established
> certificate authorities around the world.
Funny, that doesn't appear to be sufficient for trademark holders.
If it was simple as that we wouldn't need clearing houses and adjudication
procedures whose resolution isn't done just by algorithm. Yet ICANN has
seemed fit to bestow this myriad of non-technical protection measures to
trademarks, but is satisfied to stop short of offering similar protection
to non-commercial trustworthy names. So *this* is the place to draw the
line and say "no more protections"? Good luck with that.
> any consumer can walk up the certificate chain to check that they are
> chatting with the IGO itself and not a fake.
This is the point at which I stopped reading.
To expect Internet end-users -- especially newcomers -- to understand (let
alone trace and discern legitimate certificates from fakes) Internet
digital signatures is a recipe for utter failure. Unless and until that
process is seamless globally, it is a wholly unsatisfactory solution.
Maybe the answer is not completely within ICANN's remit but it absolutely
within mandate to maintain trust in the DNS. So perhaps partnership with
other bodies is in order, to strengthen and simplify the infrastructure and
to engage in public education on self-defence. ICANN has traditionaly
avoided such alliances, perhaps it is time to re-think.
But really? It's up to Internet end-users to "walk up the certificate
chain" else they deserve to be scammed? And trademark holders get
preferential treatment over names created by international treaty? If
that's the best ICANN can do in response to this kind of challenge, you
might as well start prepping for another transition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large