ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Status Update from expert working group on gTLD Directory Services

  • To: Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Status Update from expert working group on gTLD Directory Services
  • From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:54:43 +0100

John Berard is liaison from GNSO Council to CCNSO Council.  

I am not comfortable with making a statement that assumes that there has been a 
robust and thorough discussion about views about ccTLD policy even in this one 
area.  We have done a tremendous amount of work focused on gTLD WHOIS.  But we 
have not had a robust, cross BC discussion of detail and thoroughness yet 
related to ccTLD policy in this area. 

I offer a comment, and an alternative that might be possible to reach agreement 

I added John as I hope to have a sense from him about how the Council will view 
a BC statement, as we haven't developed or enhanced much of a relationship 
between the BC and the CCNSO, although many of us individually have individual 
relationships. I know that Stephane as a former registrar, and some companies 
who register and use ccTLD names, and those who manage  portfolios/or offer 
specialized services to registrants, also have relationships focused on domain 
name misuse, or registration, or protection. I know a number fairly well, but 
it is more because of broader ICANN governance and because of work that some of 
us have done with several ccTLD managers /ccNSO on budget analysis. That is 
true for some other BC members.

On larger ICANN governance issues, the BC have an opportunity to work with the 

I am cautious that we not come negatively, as we have a growing opportunity to 
collaborate, and perhaps come closer to finding approaches that ccTLD managers 
may want to collaborate with us on in policy areas, as well as ICANN governance 

However, I think that we may need to separate interest in discussing what BC 
statements might be agreed  about ccTLD policy from this particular BC comment. 
I do not think we have time to thoroughly discuss BC views about ccTLD 
policy/nor relationships. OR implications about what and how to express fuller 

I could support a short neutral statement that as businesses who register and 
use ccTLD domain names,we are interested in further consideration and 
discussion with the ccNSO on accurate and accessible WHOIS,  but I am not 
enthused about going too far or too detailed. .

Marilyn Cade

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:22 AM, "Jimson Olufuye" <jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> Thanks for your valuable input.
> I do agree with your improvement but take a look at the clarification I 
> provided on item 8 to explore further improvement.
> Cheers,
> JO
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Status Update from
> expert working group on gTLD Directory Services
> From: Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, February 25, 2014 11:18 pm
> To: Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve
> DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bc - GNSO list
> <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Thank you to Steve, Susan, Jimson and Tim for their work on this public 
> comment.  Attached are Google's proposed comments to the draft.  We welcome 
> any feedback or discussion on the points raised.
> Best regards,
> Andy
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback Stephane.
>> Item 6 of the draft BC comment covers your concern with regard to compliance 
>> with local privacy law. Would you want to strengthen the statement in view 
>> of the gaps with the RAA?
>> I also share your view on the need for some congruence in policy for gTLD 
>> and ccTLD but I guess that might be an addendum to our BC comment on the EWG 
>> status report. What do you think?
>> Cheers,
>> Regards,
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Jimson Olufuye, fncs, ficma, PhD
>> CEO Kontemporary® 
>> Chair, AfICTA
>> connecting African ICT players & 
>> ... fulfilling the promise of the Digital Age for everyone in Africa.
>> www.aficta.org 
>> www.kontemporary.net.ng
>> M: +234 802 3183252
>> Skype: jolufuye
>> This email is for the exclusive recipient/s and it may contain confidential 
>> materials. If you have received it and it is not meant for you, please alert 
>> me @ jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or discard at once. Thank you.
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Status Update from
>> expert working group on gTLD Directory Services
>> From: Stephane Van Gelder Consulting <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, February 18, 2014 12:34 pm
>> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Thanks to Steve and the drafters for all this work.
>> I am speaking from memory on the EWG's report, as I have not had time ro 
>> re-read it, so apologies if these have already been raised. However, I do 
>> think there are some points the BC should consider:
>> Any contractual obligation placed on any part of the domain name supply 
>> chain (be it registries, registrars or registrants) MUST NOT contravene 
>> local law. This is especially true for data privacy issues, which are a 
>> major point of focus in Europe for example. The recent debates over the 
>> latest RAA (as a reminder, some European registrars are finding themselves 
>> unable to sign the RAA, and therefore unable to sell new gTLDs which pust 
>> them at a competitive disadvantage, because it goes against their local 
>> privacy laws: http://blog.blacknight.com/blow-fuse.html) show that any WHOIS 
>> work must also take these obligations into account. I am worried that the 
>> EWG does not seem to have taken more than a passing glance at ccTLD WHOIS 
>> obligations such as those placed on the French registry by the French 
>> national data privacy agency (CNIL). Looking at this more closely would 
>> highlight the need for opt-out clauses for those who'se national laws would 
>> prevent them enacting any EWG recommendations as-is.
>> In short, I think our message here to ICANN should also be: learn from the 
>> current RAA mistakes!
>> Another point I have made before is that I believe as representatives of 
>> businesses worldwide, we should continually nudge for this work to encompass 
>> ccTLD WHOIS as well. We have all heard before the many reasons why the EWG 
>> should not be doing so, but as businesses, do we really think it's OK to 
>> have such extensive work be done on gTLD WHOIS only? The level of confusion 
>> this risks generating for businesses that are not domain savvy, and may not 
>> understand that there are different rules for, say, .COM and .DE, should not 
>> be underestimated.
>> Thanks,
>> Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
>> SVGC.net
>> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
>> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
>> www.StephaneVanGelder.com
>> www.svgc.net
>> ----------------
>> Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
>> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
>> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
>>> On 18 February 2014 04:22, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Attached are draft BC comments and questions on the Status Update from the 
>>> expert working group on gTLD Directory Services.  
>>> The EWG status update is here, and described on this page.  Comments close 
>>> 28-Feb, so today begins a 12-day member review period.
>>> Thanks to BC members Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Susan Kawaguchi for this 
>>> drafting work. 
>>> Jimson is the CEO of Kontemporary, a systems Integration and ICT 
>>> Consultancy firm. Though less than 10% of the company revenue is from 
>>> domain businesses, he has interacted extensively with gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS 
>>> registry systems.
>>> BC members are familiar with Susan’s many years of work to improve WHOIS, 
>>> first with eBay and now with Facebook.   Susan was appointed to the WHOIS 
>>> review team two years ago and is now a member of the EWG on Directory 
>>> Services.  
>>> Tim is CEO of DomainTools, whose products partly rely on whois data to help 
>>> users understand who operates a given website or IP address, and to also 
>>> make connections between domain names.  DomainTools' clients include law 
>>> enforcement, trademark attorneys, cybercrime investigators, brand 
>>> protection agents, and a wide variety of professionals in the DNS industry.
>>> All BC members are invited to REPLY ALL with edits (using TRACK CHANGES, 
>>> please).  
>>> Note that the second half of this draft shows a dialog between Tim and 
>>> Jimson regarding certain aspects of Directory Services.  Based on member 
>>> feedback, we will refine that section into additional points or questions 
>>> for the EWG.
>>> —
>>> Steve DelBianco
>>> Vice chair for policy coordination
> -- 
> Andy Abrams | Senior Trademark Counsel
> Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
> (650) 669-8752
> <BC comments - EWG Status Update [Google + AfICTA comments].doc>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy