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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to support the idea that  that we leave the ccTLD issue 'aside', as 
apposed to 'alone', and park it.  NOT to abandon it, but to do first things, 
first.
Focus on fixing the gTLD issues; which are quite massive, and then develop a 
strategy to engage in a constructive and informed, and friendly discussion with 
the ccNSO. 
A bit ago, and I do confess to being the chair of the Task Force at the time, 
with Bruce Tonkin, Chair of Council's help, I organized a discussion with ccNSO 
that brought in several cc's to talk about what they did to validate data in 
WHOIS. At that time, it was much more than what g's did.
Of course, we are in a different world, but I suspect that if we park this, and 
perhaps ask for a different discussion about fraud and abuse and SSR concerns 
with the ccNSO, we will find allies and that can help us to bring together the 
majority of parties in shared concerns about a secure and stable WHOIS 
environment.  
Things are changing  significantly, with the advent of IDNs and new gTLDs, and 
cc's are themselves changing.  The governments in some cases are pushing to 
change their oversight of the cc in their country.  
Maybe we need a strategy to understand the role of the ccTLDs, and the mission 
and goals of the ccNSO, and how we can collaborate. 
I know that others have stronger ties than I do, but I am happy to volunteer to 
ask if this is a shared CSG issue and if so, how we might collaborate in an 
activity that can affect change, not just make a written statement about 
concerns. Those concerns are valid, and I do understand. but I suspect we can 
make a change if we work with the CCNSO.
Marilyn Cade

Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working 
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
From: stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:58:25 +0200
CC: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
To: susank@xxxxxx

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 89T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053Skype: 
SVANGELDERwww.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>