Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
Per discussion on today's BC call, please work from this current draft v3 (attached) I started by accepting changes thru yesterday's draft, including Marie's compromise language that met no objections on today's call. David Fares has not yet reviewed this, but I added something to address his point about "reveal" obligations for non-commercial entities who use privacy/proxy services: For non-commercial registrants who do use privacy/proxy services, it will be critical to define criteria under which actual registrant data would be revealed to qualified requestors. As with the prior RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement), an obligation to “reveal” registrant data should be triggered by government or private entities that show evidence of actionable harm under laws applicable to the domain registrant and requestor. Further edits and comments welcome. We want to finalize and submit on 12-Aug. From: Elizabeth Sweezey <liz.sweezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:liz.sweezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2013 1:05 PM To: David Fares <DFares@xxxxxxxx<mailto:DFares@xxxxxxxx>>, "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) 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<mailto:liz.sweezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> SKYPE: lizsweezey FairWinds: http://www.fairwindspartners.com FairWinds Blog: http://www.domainnamestrategy.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, Attachment:
BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v3].doc
|