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

[Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marilyn,

I appreciate your input on this issue.  I am fine with substituting the
current ccTLD language with a more neutral statement that as businesses who
register and use ccTLD domains, we are interested in further consideration
and discussion with the ccNSO on accurate and accessible WHOIS/directory
services.

Best,

Andy


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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 on.
>
> 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 ccTLDs.
>
> 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 areas.
>
> 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 views.
>
> 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
>> Skype: SVANGELDER
>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/status-update-11nov13-en.pdf&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=cjstkpAuvAi4gqeqX5O18A%3D%3D%0A&m=wJFOU6s054w1azbYfrViPjQwyeWw9OhmeU6Ik0vokA8%3D%0A&s=f6ba989d4315c9c617edc3620ce2274d96f3c98901857bd1683ca7d5b41ae297>,
>>> and described on this 
>>> page<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11nov13-en.htm>.
>>>  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 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
>
> <BC comments - EWG Status Update [Google + AfICTA comments].doc>
>
>


-- 
Andy Abrams | Senior Trademark Counsel
*Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>