Re: [ga] GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Like the author of the article, I see authentication mechanisms (such as those 
used by .museum) as a way to reduce the impact of phishing on this sector.  
Rather than asking me how a .bank proposal would add value to the namespace, 
why not ask the "Banks in ICANN Consortium" that recently joined the BC?  We 
all know that many will join the BC in order to become future registry 
operators. Doubtless they will have a suitable answer for you to consider.  



--- On Sun, 6/29/08, sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> From: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers
> To: dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 11:39 AM
> > Re:  Still waiting for you to explain how a .bank TLD
> will add value to
> > the
> > namespace.
> >
> > Have a look at this article which might answer your
> question:
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/dec/07/money.guardianweeklytechnologysection
> >
> > Of course, it's ultimately up to whomever proposes
> a .bank or a similar
> > string to make the case for the added value they will
> provide.
> 
> Actually, YOU made the statement that .bank would add value
> so I asked you
> to make the case... As for the issue which is raised in the
> article you
> cite, that is nothing new. Despite a never-ending parade of
> security
> measures over the past several decades, banks are still
> robbed and fraud
> still goes on even though we have all sorts of systems set
> up to prevent
> such things. Do you seriously think that a .bank TLD will
> curtail online
> bank fraud? Creative criminals will find a way to get
> around the measure
> just as they always have... So again, tell us how YOU see
> the .bank TLD
> adding value to the namespace.