RE: [gnso-stability-thickwhois] Escrow & Stability

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

I agree we should do a risk assessment, so long as that risk assessment is 
based on the decade of history we have with thick registries.  It's easy to 
throw out hypothetical risks.  It would be great to have some of these parties 
provide some corroboration for their risks.  Otherwise, my assessment (and that 
of the other thick registries - .info, .biz, .org, .pro, .xxx, .coop, .tel, 
.travel, .asia, etc.) of each of the risks presented will be zero or close 
thereto. 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs



-----Original Message-----
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:49 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'gnso-stability-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-stability-thickwhois] Escrow & Stability

hi all,

first, a disclaimer.  i have a spectacular cold, which has reduced my brain to 
pudding and my voice to a sound-effect.  you'll get to enjoy both on the call 
that's coming up in an hour or so.

but here are a couple thoughts that i'll be pushing on the call today.

first, in response to Alan's first line ("i'm at a bit of a loss as to how 
we're going to proceed")...

i think what we have been presented in these comments is a series of really 
good puzzles to solve.  when confronting a series of puzzles several "first 
steps" come to mind:

- identify the puzzles

- identify people and/or techniques that can break the puzzles into bite-sized 
pieces, and help us solve them


in response to Jeff's "risks" comment...

i think some of the puzzles that we've been presented *are* risks -- and in 
that case "risk assessment" is one of the techniques that we might apply to 
work through the puzzle.  i would be cautious about characterizing risks as 
"so-called" at this point.  one of the components of our risk-assessment (if 
that's the technique we choose to use) could be to estimate the likelihood of 
the events and the impact of the events.  some of the likelihoods could be low, 
but the impact could be big.  they're still real and legitimate topics of 
conversation and analysis, in my view.

see?  i told you.  weird things happen when i mix the yellow and blue pills 
when treating a cold.  :-)

see you soon.  bootleg copies of the MP3 audio transcript will be available for 
sale shortly after the call ends.

mikey


On Jan 28, 2013, at 6:16 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> I would like to understand a little bit more about the so-called risks.  .biz 
> and .info have been thick for over a decade without any incident from an 
> escrow or stability standpoint.  .org has been thick for about 8 or 9 years 
> with no incident.  .us and a number of other cctlds have been thick for quite 
> some time...again no incident.
> 
> We need to engage a little more in some fact based decision making and not 
> cater to the philosophical fears that have never arisen.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> 
> Sent from iPad.  Please excuse any typos.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:         Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 06:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   gnso-stability-thickwhois@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject:      Re: [gnso-stability-thickwhois] Escrow & Stability
> 
> I am at a bit of a loss as to how we are going to proceed.
> 
> On the questions of benefits of having two repositories and two 
> escrows, all parties agree that it would be good, but NCUC, NPOC and 
> Verisign feel that there are risks or problems associated with both 
> registrars and registries housing data that outweigh the benefits. 
> NPOC's position is that if things are run well, extra copies are not 
> needed. It is not clear how to ensure that things are run well.
> 
> On the question of whether registrar escrow is needed IF we have all 
> thick registries, all parties that answered think that registrar 
> escrow should be kept, but some of the answers seem to imply "we 
> don't want thick so therefore registrar escrow still needed".
> 
> I am attaching an extract of the comment template for our questions 
> with my short-hand summaries in column D. Feel free to add your own.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 15/01/2013 09:56 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 
>> I am afraid that I have had to focus on other issues until now, but 
>> given that stakeholder input is just now arriving, this is probably 
>> a good time to start work in earnest.
>> 
>> The members of this sub-group are:
>> .        Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
>> .        Carolyn Hoover (RySG)
>> .        Tim Ruiz (RrSG)
>> .        Jeff Neuman (RySG)
>> .        Christopher E George (IPC)
>> .        Frederic Guillemaut (RrSG)
>> 
>> As I understand it, we are looking at two issues:
>> 
>> - Stability, with a focus on the implications and requirements of 
>> having multiple repositories of Whois data.
>> - Data Escrow document what is done and investigate if any changes 
>> are required or recommended.
>> 
>> I suggest the following for our work-plan:
>> 
>> 1. Discussion and enhancement (if applicable) of topics to be 
>> addressed - on list.
>> 2. Individual review of stakeholder input.
>> 3. Schedule a call to to discuss issues.
>> 4. Draft summary/report
>> 
>> Comments?
>> 
>> Alan
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)