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

[Elizabeth Sweezey <liz.sweezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you to all those who have been active in this discussion and I look 
forward to seeing the outcome.

Who is holding the pen on the draft?  I personally like Marie's language as 
well, and wonder if it would be beneficial to engage the ccNSO before BA, or 
even before the EWG submits its document.




Elizabeth C. Sweezey
Vice President, Policy & External Relations
FairWinds Partners, LLC
1000 Potomac Street, Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20007
Office: +1 202 223 9254
Mobile: +1 202 341 1101
Email: liz.sweezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SKYPE: lizsweezey

FairWinds: http://www.fairwindspartners.com
FairWinds Blog: http://www.domainnamestrategy.com

FairWinds<http://www.fairwindspartners.com/> | The FairWinds 
Blog<http://www.domainnamestrategy.com/> | gTLD Strategy 
Blog<http://www.gtldstrategy.com/>

This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain 
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under 
applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or 
the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete this 
e-mail and all attachments from your system.


From: <Fares>, David <DFares@xxxxxxxx<mailto:DFares@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, August 8, 2013 9:38 AM
To: "Smith, Bill" 
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working 
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)

Colleagues,

We have been reviewing the BC comments and the very robust exchange among 
members.  We would like to raise two issues which are fundamental to the BC’s 
views.  We look forward to working with everyone to find a compromise and a way 
forward.


1.       We have concerns regarding the focus on commercial versus 
non-commercial sites.  Some sites may not have any commercial intent or raise 
any revenues but they could still have a commercial impact on other businesses. 
 Addressing this latter issue is essential to maintaining both business and 
consumer trust in the Internet.  We are very sympathetic to the need to protect 
political speech and are happy to work with members to define an appropriate 
approach for the BC to advocate.  Perhaps it is better to focus on the “reveal” 
rules for proxy services if the domain name is commercial or has a commercial 
impact?



2.       We share concerns regarding access by authoritarian regimes but wonder 
if, as drafted, the comments will create significant political challenges for 
the BC going forward.  It could also put ICANN in a very difficult political 
situation that could jeopardize its position as a technical body.  We are not 
sure how we handle this but wanted to flag it for consideration.

Thank you for your consideration and as mentioned we look forward to discussing 
these comments.

David

PS: Apologies for the delay in posting, I tried several times but I have a new 
email address that was not recognized for posting.



From:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:58 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working 
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)

Thanks to all for the proposed language and willingness to come to an 
agreement. i will defer to others on language and/or whether or not include a 
statement on this issue or not. I think it unfortunate that we were driven to 
such a rapid conclusion on this topic but that is where we are.
On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:06 AM, Gabriela Szlak 
<gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Dear all,

We would like to thank all BC members that are involved in these efforts, 
particularly Susan who is a member of the EWG and the drafters of the comment 
and proposed changes.

We support Marie´s compromise language for the ccTLDs issue and the approach 
suggested by Marilyn.

Regarding the security concerns we are not a technical organization but we do 
recognize the security issues at stake are important and would like to point 
out those issues with the best approach possible, counting on the guidance of 
the expertise of other members of the group. In that light Marie´s moderated 
version, if accepted by the group are fine with us.

Thanks again for these efforts,
Gabi



2013/8/6 Marilyn Cade 
<marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>

Thanks, Marie. I think this is a good approach.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx<mailto:marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:42:08
To: <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx>>; 
<jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working
 Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
Dear all,

I don't know the politics and history, but wonder if we can find a middle 
ground: eventually we'd like the system to be the same everywhere, for 
everyone. So for that long game, and to give us something to refer back to 
without putting anyone on the spot right now, could we replace Stéphane's 
suggestion with something more generic, e.g.:

"The BC looks forward to active involvement in this debate as it goes forward 
and hopes that the entire community will work towards one unified model for all 
registration data in the future, to the benefit of all Internet users and the 
entire DNS industry."

Obviously deferring to John, Marilyn and the other experts here!

Marie



From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of 
stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: mardi 6 août 2013 11:33
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; J. Scott Evans; Smith, Bill; Steve DelBianco; 
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working 
Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)

Thanks John.



I really am not looking to light a fuse.



I am looking to address a problem that repeatedly vexes Internet users. They 
just do not understand why they have to face such varying levels of WHOIS 
format, complexity and operation in their daily domain-owning lives. And they 
tend to own both cc and g domains regardless, according to their needs.



However as said before, I understand your concerns. Your suggestion to approach 
Byron discreetly may be a good "diplomatic" move. I would support.



I would also support Marilyn's suggestion to check where the rest of the CSG is 
on this issue.



Thanks,





Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89<tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2020%2040%2055%2089>

T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053<tel:%2B44%20%280%297583%20457053>

Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com<http://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> 
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>

LinkedIn: 
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
 <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>

Le 6 août 2013 à 03:02, 
john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>  a écrit :




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<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm
To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx> 
<mailto:susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx>> >
Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>> >, 
"john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> " 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, "Smith, 
Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, "Steve 
DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>  list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2020%2040%2055%2089>

T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053<tel:%2B44%20%280%297583%20457053>

Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com<http://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> 
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>

LinkedIn: 
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>
 <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>

Le 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx> 
<mailto: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.










Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager

Facebook Legal Dept.



Phone - 650 485-6064<tel:650%20485-6064>








From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>> >
Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>> >
Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM
To: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> " 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, "Smith, 
Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, 
"stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>> " 
<stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>> >
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>  list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto: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<tel:408.349.1385> - 
jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>










----------------

From: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> " 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >
To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>> >; "Smith, Bill" 
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >; 
stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >; 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>  list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto: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> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>> >
Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm
To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, 
stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Steve DelBianco" 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >, 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>  list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto: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<tel:408.349.1385> - 
jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>










----------------

From: "Smith, Bill" 
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >
To: "<stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>> >" 
<stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>> >
Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>> >; "Smith, Bill" 
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >; Steve 
DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >; 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>  list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto: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> 
<mailto: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<tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2020%2040%2055%2089>

T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053<tel:%2B44%20%280%297583%20457053>

Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com<http://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> 
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>

LinkedIn: 
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/<http://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> 
<mailto: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<tel:408.349.1385> - 
jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>










----------------

From: "Smith, Bill" 
<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >
To: "stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>> " 
<stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>> >
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> >; 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>  list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<mailto: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> 
<mailto: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<tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2020%2040%2055%2089>

T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053<tel:%2B44%20%280%297583%20457053>

Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com<http://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> 
<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>

LinkedIn: 
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/<http://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> 
<mailto: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>






--
Gabriela Szlak
www.clared.co<http://www.clared.co/>
www.estudiorosz.com.ar<http://www.estudiorosz.com.ar/>
www.einstituto.org<http://www.einstituto.com.ar/>
www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/>

Skype: gabrielaszlak
Twitter: @GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.
The information in this e-mail is confidential.



This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential 
information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the 
addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message 
to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments 
to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its 
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this 
message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of 
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have 
been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email 
or its attachments are without defect.