<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
- To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>, Bill Smith <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:59:55 -0400
like many members, I am just catching up on the details and trying to
understand all views on this important BC statement.
I will post my comments tomorrow, or Wednesday, but I wanted to ask all to
allow for a bit of thoughtful consideration, as many are on holiday, during
August. I am only able to be online about 3 hours a day for a bit now, so may
be delayed in responding.
Marilyn Cade
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:41:38 -0700
From: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
To: bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
oops, that should read "whether." hahahaha j. scott evans - head of global
brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
From: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
Bill:
I cannot say weather these are real concerns are not. We have a short timeline
here and I do not have the time to track down my folks, educate them on the
debate and put together a Yahoo! position. Given that we cannot come to
consensus here, I suggest we delete. If PayPal feels confident in these
statements, I think you all should file a separate public comment.
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: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx"
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
I agree with the "entity" changes but do not agree to the deletion of the text
associated with concerns related to a centralized aggregation of security
professional information and the associated operation of an information and
access control system. These
are very real concerns.
On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:31 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sorry for that. Jetlag.
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. -
408.349.1385
- jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
J. Scott,
Could you send me the doc? I can't seem to locate the most current version.
Thanks,
Bill
On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:25 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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>
<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1] -JSE3.doc>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|