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

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

I understand the sentiments expressed by John and Susan.

However, I would think it a pity that the ICANN community as a whole once again 
decides to shy away completely from any attempt at bringing some common sense 
into the g and cc coexistence.

For me, at a time when so many ccs are either already behaving as gs or about 
to manage some new gTLDs themselves, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest 
that both namespaces look towards some way of finding a common approach on 
registration data.

I also think that the BC, as the home of business in the ICANN ecosystem, would 
be behaving in a responsible manner to its constituents by highlighting this 
fact in this instance.

I believe the language I have suggested is soft enough not to appear aggressive 
for cc managers.

So I would suggest we have a good opportunity here to get a common sense 
message across.

Thanks,

Stéphane 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 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@xxxxxx> a écrit :

> I agree with John, we have been very careful on the EWG to look at the ccTlds 
> and how they manage the domain name record data but our mandate did not 
> include looking at  ccTld registration data for this database.  I think we 
> already have a steep uphill climb for gTlds and we may want to leave the 
> ccTlds out of it for now.  
> 
> Susan Kawaguchi
> Domain Name Manager
> Facebook Legal Dept.
>  
> Phone - 650 485-6064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM
> To: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Smith, Bill" 
> <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "stephvg@xxxxxxxxx" <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list" 
> <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert 
> Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
> 
> John:
> 
> Thanks for the comment.  That's just the kind of dialogue I am looking for 
> here.  Others?
> 
> J. Scott
> 
>  
> j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 
> 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> From: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; "Smith, Bill" 
> <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; stephvg@xxxxxxxxx 
> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list" 
> <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:37 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert 
> Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
> 
> 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,
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Stéphane 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 août 2013 à 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> 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,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Stéphane 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 août 2013 à 17:53, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a 
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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>
>> 
>> 
> 
>