RE: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

J. Scott, et. al.,
 
With regard to whether it will be a political bombshell or not, I cannot say, 
but as the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council I have come to appreciate 
the bright line they draw between the "g" and the "cc" name space.  I suspect 
that even if Stephane's suggestion would not be the incendiary device you 
foretell, it would be a distraction from the more urgent matter of solving the 
directory services problem for the the gTLDs.  I would vote not to include the 
language.
 
My two cents.
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 
11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm
To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

  Dear All:


I have reviewed Bill's emails, his comments and those added by Stephane.  I am 
fine with Stephane's comments so long as we all feel this wouldn't be a 
political bombshell (however realistic and practical it may be).


As for Bill's suggestion about "entities".  I have attempted to suggest 
language that I think assuage my concerns.  Bill?


J. Scott
 
 
j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 
408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx

 
 
 
 From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 To: "<stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>" <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; "Smith, Bill" 
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
 Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 12:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working 
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
 

   I have attached an updated version. I'm quite happy with Stephane's addition 
but would ask J. Scott to offer alternative language for "entities" and to look 
with Yahoo to get a better understanding of the complexity and difficulty of 
operating a large-scale directory infrastructure, especially one that is by its 
nature sensitive.  
(see my comments within J Scott's comments)
 
Any move from a freely available public WHOIS system to one that is mediated 
and subject to access controls requires careful consideration. Implementing a 
secure, internet-scale, global directory for "accredited" security 
professionals will be no small task.
 
 





 

  On Aug 5, 2013, at 11:50 AM, <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:

   I have added to J Scott's latest redraft a bit at the end about the 
possibility of extending this work to the cc space.  
The wording is not perfect IMO, but hopefully the intent is clear.
 
Thanks,
 
 

 

   St&eacute;phane Van Gelder
 Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
 STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
 
 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
 ----------------
 Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
  LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/




  Le 5 ao&ucirc;t 2013 &agrave; 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
a &eacute;crit :

    Bill and team:

 
I have re-reviewed the draft with Bill's suggested revisions.  I have attached 
a redline showing my thoughts on top of Bill's suggested edits.

 
J. Scott
 
 
j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 
408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
 
 
 
 
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 To: "stephvg@xxxxxxxxx" <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
 Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
 Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 9:12 AM
 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working 
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
 

   +1  
Attached is a marked up version of the document. I have attempted to replace 
web and website with Internet and service (generally) and hope that my changes 
read properly. I believe it important to make the distinction between the web 
and Internet since the ARDS is used for much more than the web.
 
I also included some comments and additions that I believe are necessary to 
include. In particular, I disagree with the assertion that there is no 
foundation for the belief that the scale of the ARDS make it vulnerable. 
Internet entities are vulnerable regardless of size but as they grow, they 
become increasingly attractive targets. ARDS will be attractive - or the 
Registrar community has been disingenuous about the scale of SPAM, customer 
loss, etc. that results from harvesting information via WHOIS.
 
I have also added text related to Gated Access and concerns related to data 
aggregation and operation of such a critical resource necessarily dependent on 
PII of security professionals. These individuals face very real risks given the 
work they do, those they "oppose", and the penalties imposed for crimes they 
uncover.
 
I hope we will consider the changes I have proposed.
 
 



   
On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:51 PM,  stephvg@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

  Thank you Steve, Laura, Susan, J Scott and Elisa for a well drafted document 
that I believe is perfectly inline with business users interests as defined by 
our charter.  
If I might make a suggestion, even though it's out of scope of the EWG's work, 
I would love to see something in our opening comments about the fact that if 
the RDS model is adopted (or another unified model for managing gTLD 
registration data), it would be extremely beneficial for Internet users 
worldwide if ccTLD registries were also willing to work towards the adoption of 
the same, single-format, model.
 
I think it's useful for commentors to the EWG's draft report to make this 
point, even though ccTLD managers abide by their own national laws and ways of 
doing things, because we all have a lot to gain from a more effective and more 
uniform registration data database.
 
Apart from that suggestion, I have no other comments. The draft seems spot on 
to me and is supported by SVG Consulting Ltd.
 
Thanks,

   St&eacute;phane Van Gelder
 Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
 STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
 
 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
 ----------------
 Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
  LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/




  Le 3 ao&ucirc;t 2013 &agrave; 17:53, Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a &eacute;crit :

     It's time for the BC to comment on the draft model for Next Generation 
gTLD Directory Services. 

 
The Expert Working Group (EWG) published its draft report  here. 




 
Public comment page is here and the EWG Wiki page is  here.


 

Laura Covington prepared the attached draft of BC comments, with help from 
Susan Kawaguchi, J Scott Evans, and Elisa Cooper.

 
 
The comment period closes 12-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 11-Aug with 
edits or questions.  








 
--
Steve DelBianco     Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency




 

   

 









<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1].doc> 


 






 




<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1] -JSE2.doc> 



<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1] -JSE2-SVG.doc>