<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
- To: "John Berard Berard " <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "stephvg@xxxxxxxxx " <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Susan K " <susank@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: 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: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:18:48 +0000
I do think that there are strong sensitivities. I already proposed a more
genteel approach for understanding the CCNSO's views and priorities, which I
didn't see any forthcoming interest in. I stand behind my suggestion for
focusing on gTLDs, and proceeding with a more collaborative approach in
engaging w ccNSO. As noted, I can suppot Marie's language.
But also, the CSG has discussed having the Cross Constituency bkft w the CCNSO
in BA. If so, the topics will likely be ICANN governance and budget, Strat
plan. But a good opportunity to have civil engagements.
.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:02:31
To: <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>; <susank@xxxxxx>
Cc: <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert
Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
Stephane,
As you know, I am not afraid to light a fuse, but make no mistake in my
judgement that this will be lighting a fuse. Perhaps we can let Byron (new
chair of the ccNSO council know what we are up to. I would be more than happy
to make the contact as he is Canadian and will likely take it politely if not
well.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
From: stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm
To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@xxxxxx>
Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>, "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve
DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list"
<bc-gnso@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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us
on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn: <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
Le 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@xxxxxx <mailto: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.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> >
Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM
To: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "Smith, Bill"
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >,
"stephvg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> " <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
----------------
From: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> >;
"Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
stephvg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> >
Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm
To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
----------------
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: "<stephvg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> >" <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> >;
"Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.stephanevangelder.com/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=RfTjtTQBKN%2BQcoX4JkHSqqoeuEc%2FGWno5xqQTlAKzPo%3D%0A&m=RaYn95eM%2B3xlzmZ4%2FBnEsjNbeHw02IY86kkEIblkK58%3D%0A&s=396c77079583c49e46abef00845888658b07005e75d215b90ece8f0b321629b3>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us
on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=RfTjtTQBKN%2BQcoX4JkHSqqoeuEc%2FGWno5xqQTlAKzPo%3D%0A&m=RaYn95eM%2B3xlzmZ4%2FBnEsjNbeHw02IY86kkEIblkK58%3D%0A&s=f389607d1af9c0c953bd359de09a2eb338a08f5f782c579c8334b497daaecf79>
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
Le 5 août 2013 à 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
----------------
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: "stephvg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> " <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.stephanevangelder.com/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=RfTjtTQBKN%2BQcoX4JkHSqqoeuEc%2FGWno5xqQTlAKzPo%3D%0A&m=RaYn95eM%2B3xlzmZ4%2FBnEsjNbeHw02IY86kkEIblkK58%3D%0A&s=396c77079583c49e46abef00845888658b07005e75d215b90ece8f0b321629b3>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us
on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=RfTjtTQBKN%2BQcoX4JkHSqqoeuEc%2FGWno5xqQTlAKzPo%3D%0A&m=RaYn95eM%2B3xlzmZ4%2FBnEsjNbeHw02IY86kkEIblkK58%3D%0A&s=f389607d1af9c0c953bd359de09a2eb338a08f5f782c579c8334b497daaecf79>
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
Le 3 août 2013 à 17:53, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=RfTjtTQBKN%2BQcoX4JkHSqqoeuEc%2FGWno5xqQTlAKzPo%3D%0A&m=RaYn95eM%2B3xlzmZ4%2FBnEsjNbeHw02IY86kkEIblkK58%3D%0A&s=3ee5d59a43ea0734285f08b830a85f0098008efd56d42a979e9c2ebd5f42949b>
.
Public comment page is here
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=RfTjtTQBKN%2BQcoX4JkHSqqoeuEc%2FGWno5xqQTlAKzPo%3D%0A&m=RaYn95eM%2B3xlzmZ4%2FBnEsjNbeHw02IY86kkEIblkK58%3D%0A&s=52b62dd77d2bdf7019087cd723969ec9858c98b1e503d06e3aa13aed7c5ff404>
and the EWG Wiki page is here
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/display/WG/Explore%2Bthe%2BDraft%2BNext%2BGeneration%2BgTLD%2BDirectory%2BServices%2BModel&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=RfTjtTQBKN%2BQcoX4JkHSqqoeuEc%2FGWno5xqQTlAKzPo%3D%0A&m=RaYn95eM%2B3xlzmZ4%2FBnEsjNbeHw02IY86kkEIblkK58%3D%0A&s=b8461cf7b2005648feb89c930fe68ae0efe7ec587ac269aeb035a526115cb64f>
.
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>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|