Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Possible additional registries to mention for page 37 footnote

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, bearing in mind that this is for a footnote, and that we'd like to
accommodate Greg's concern that the spotlight not focus directly on his
organization, I think we could use the APWG report (already cited), and
choose a few other large TLDs that are doing a good job. EU (0.4), DE and UK
(both 0.8) are perhaps sufficient. I still like the idea of including the
URL for the Afilias policy, and we could probably look at the DE registry
site to see if they have a useful policy reference (pretty information-full
web site, BTW).


On 12/19/08 12:26 PM  Dec 19, 2008, "Joe St Sauver" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Dave mentioned:
>
> #The APWG Annual Phishing 1H2008 metric would suggest that several others
> #that have abuse under control if you consider that metric as valuable.
> #
> #That report also makes some useful observations regarding the
> #characteristics that those registries share. Using the APWG scoring, you
> #could add all the TLDs that had a score of less than 1, for example, AG, AR,
> #DE, DM, EU, .. Don't overlook Libya with a "attaboy" score of 0.0  :-)
> #
> #The EU score is noteworthy because it's a sizeable registry.
>
> That would work for me!
>
> #You could also use "phishing uptime". COOP, Jersey, Caymans, Kazakhstan,
> #Nicaragua are all around 4-5 hours.
> #
> #Perhaps a combination of scores... Aren't numbers fun?
>
> They are! I *love* data. However, I am also mindful that if we're working
> on a "non-law journal"-length footnote, we better not make it *too* data-rich.
> Would mentioning dot eu be enough to mute the spotlight that might otherwise
> overly emphasize affilias/dot info, Greg?
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe