This may have changed but the CCT report found far fewer defensive registrations in the new gTLDs than expected because the volume would just be too high. Instead, other means of monitoring, etc., were employed. Rather than accept defensive registrations as
a solution, should we perhaps suggest blocking as an alternative? Regulating an entire market to facilitate an unfortunate activity seems wrong.
Hi Roberto,
I don't work for Citi Bank, and am not aware of knowing anyone who does. So I have no idea.
I would note that, at this moment, we are probably 6 months from ICANN publishing the IDN effort's tables of all the variations on the Latin alphabet. Having that readily available will make coming up with
indistinguishable domain names much easier for bad actors. And thus the need for defensive registrations.
In short, the problem wrt the need for defensive registrations is still at the readily foreseeable stage, rather than the already exploding in our face stage.
Bill
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 2:16 AM, Roberto Gaetano
<roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bill.
Just a couple of questions wrt:
The only obvious defense, for registrants who want their customers to arrive reliably at their website, will be defensive registrations. Lots of defensive registrations. (I did a quick calculation for Citi Bank. 4 letter domain name. Close to 300 readily
confusable variations. Longer names would have more, of course.)
How many actual defensive registrations has Citi Bank?
R.