[153190] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hal Murray)
Fri Jun 1 02:04:22 2012
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 23:03:06 -0700
Cc: hmurray@megapathdsl.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will
> hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous
> scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to
> other TLD's.
Right. But your "high cost" is relative to dime-a-dozen vanity domains
and/or domains for small/tiny businesses. That's not their target market.
How much would it be worth to a bank if they could keep a few of their
customers from being scammed? How much would it be worth to an ISP if they
could keep a few of their customers from being phished? For starters, just
consider the support costs.
Here is a note from a different context that says it only costs $99 for
Verisign to certify you to sign secure-boot stuff for Windows 8, so I think
that's the right ballpark.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
I'm assuming that the hard part is the initial verification, not the ongoing
monitoring that can be automated. YMMV. I might be all wet. ...
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
