[Avamander]

At the same time given the already terrible reputation of such vanity TLDs, being this hard on abuse might be the only survivable way.

That's not me saying there shouldn't be a warning and a recourse, but the time-to-profit for domain abuse is really short so anti-abuse actions have to be quick.

[NewJazz]

This isn't being hard on abuse though, this is being lazy and incompetent.

[Avamander]

I'm fairly sure that Safe Browsing's false-positive rate is extremely low otherwise it'd be unusable in Chrome. Which also means that acting on positive results is very likely a correct approach.

[NewJazz]

Safe browsing is meant for websites, not domain names. You really want your registry acting on it and nuking your email services, intranet services, cert renewal automation, et cetera?

[Avamander]

You think no bad actor thinks of that, using subdomains or whatnot?

Nor did I say anything about wanting a registry acting on it, it's just that the motivations and reasons are incredibly clear. At least to me.

And let me also reiterate that I clearly said that it should be a thought-out process and they haven't thought it out.