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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for keeping the BC informed, John.  I think that getting a primer is an 
excellent idea.  We could all use – I suspect – a clear cut explanation of the 
similarities and differences between ccTLDs and gTLDs.  Particularly when we 
see so many crossing over as gTLDs, such as the .CO example.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 13:24
To: Andy Abrams; Marilyn Cade
Cc: Jimson Olufuye; svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: BC comment on Status Update from expert 
working group on gTLD Directory Services

 

All,

 

One thing I have learned in the last couple of years is that the approaches of 
the ccTLDs are not different just because they say they are.  The rules, 
written by local government, in the main, are often far more iron-clad and 
accessible than in the G world.  I might suggest we ask for a primer on just 
how they are different (from gTLDs and among ccTLDs, too).  Perhaps we can 
squeeze in a webinar before Singapore?  I can ask Byron at CIRA (and chair of 
the ccNSO Council0 to suggest someone who could do it for us.

 

Cheers,

 

Berard

 

--------- 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 <mailto:abrams@xxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: 2/28/14 9:51 am
To: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: "Jimson Olufuye" <jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "John Berard" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> " <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "Steve DelBianco" 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, "bc - GNSO list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> >

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 
<mailto: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 
<mailto: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 <mailto:abrams@xxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Tue, February 25, 2014 11:18 pm
To: Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:jolufuye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: "svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> " 
<svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, Steve
DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >, bc - 
GNSO list
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 
<mailto: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 <http://www.aficta.org>  
www.kontemporary.net.ng <http://www.kontemporary.net.ng> 
M: +234 802 3183252 <tel:%2B234%20802%203183252> 
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 <mailto: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 
<mailto:svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Tue, February 18, 2014 12:34 pm
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>
Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <http://SVGC.net> 

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>  

www.svgc.net <http://www.svgc.net> 

----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> 
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ 
<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> 

 

On 18 February 2014 04:22, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto: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 

 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones> (650) 669-8752

<BC comments - EWG Status Update [Google + AfICTA comments].doc>





 

-- 

Andy Abrams | Senior Trademark Counsel
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 

 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones> (650) 669-8752