[bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)

Tue Aug 6 00:09:50 UTC 2013

I'd like to support the idea that  that we leave the ccTLD issue 'aside', as apposed to 'alone', and park it.  NOT to abandon it, but to do first things, first.
Focus on fixing the gTLD issues; which are quite massive, and then develop a strategy to engage in a constructive and informed, and friendly discussion with the ccNSO. 
A bit ago, and I do confess to being the chair of the Task Force at the time, with Bruce Tonkin, Chair of Council's help, I organized a discussion with ccNSO that brought in several cc's to talk about what they did to validate data in WHOIS. At that time, it was much more than what g's did.
Of course, we are in a different world, but I suspect that if we park this, and perhaps ask for a different discussion about fraud and abuse and SSR concerns with the ccNSO, we will find allies and that can help us to bring together the majority of parties in shared concerns about a secure and stable WHOIS environment.  
Things are changing  significantly, with the advent of IDNs and new gTLDs, and cc's are themselves changing.  The governments in some cases are pushing to change their oversight of the cc in their country.  
Maybe we need a strategy to understand the role of the ccTLDs, and the mission and goals of the ccNSO, and how we can collaborate. 
I know that others have stronger ties than I do, but I am happy to volunteer to ask if this is a shared CSG issue and if so, how we might collaborate in an activity that can affect change, not just make a written statement about concerns. Those concerns are valid, and I do understand. but I suspect we can make a change if we work with the CCNSO.
Marilyn Cade

Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
From: stephvg at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:58:25 +0200
CC: jscottevans at yahoo.com; john at crediblecontext.com; bill.smith at paypal-inc.com; sdelbianco at netchoice.org; bc-gnso at icann.org
To: susank at fb.com

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 89T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053Skype: SVANGELDERwww.StephaneVanGelder.com----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com> 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

From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans at yahoo.com>

Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans at yahoo.com>

Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM

To: "john at crediblecontext.com" <john at crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>,
 "stephvg at gmail.com" <stephvg at gmail.com>

Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso at icann.org list" <bc-gnso at icann.org>

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
 - jscottevans at yahoo.com

From: "john at crediblecontext.com" <john at crediblecontext.com>

To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans at yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>;
stephvg at gmail.com 

Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso at icann.org list" <bc-gnso at icann.org>

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 at yahoo.com>

Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm

To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>,
stephvg at gmail.com

Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso at icann.org list" <bc-gnso at icann.org>

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 - 
jscottevans at yahoo.com

From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>

To: "<stephvg at gmail.com>" <stephvg at gmail.com>

Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans at yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>;
 "bc-gnso at icann.org list" <bc-gnso at icann.org>

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 at gmail.com>
 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
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------

Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant

LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 5 août 2013 à 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans at yahoo.com> 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 - 
jscottevans at yahoo.com

From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>

To: "stephvg at gmail.com" <stephvg at gmail.com>

Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso at icann.org
 list" <bc-gnso at icann.org>

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 at gmail.com 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,

Stéphane Van Gelder

Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur

STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------

Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant

LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 3 août 2013 à 17:53, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> a écrit :

It's time for the BC to comment on the draft model for Next Generation gTLD Directory Services. 

The Expert Working Group (EWG) published its draft report

here. 

Public
 comment page is here and
 the EWG Wiki page is 
here.

Laura Covington prepared the attached draft of BC comments, with help from Susan Kawaguchi, J Scott Evans, and Elisa Cooper.

The comment period closes 12-Aug-2013, so please
Reply All before 11-Aug with edits or questions.  

--
Steve DelBianco

Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency

<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1].doc>

<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1] -JSE2.doc>

<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1] -JSE2-SVG.doc>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130805/16efbe90/attachment.html>