<html>
<body>
Greg, <br><br>
Thanks for deriving this possible requirement. In this case, I recommend
moving DA-D53-R03 to UP-D53-R01 and prefacing it as follows:<br><br>
"In the Singapore GAC Communiqué of March 27, 2014, GAC requests
that registration data be made available for the following stated
purpose: Safeguard 3: Should Registry Operators undertake periodic
security checks to analyze whether domains in its gTLD are being used for
threats to security, such as pharming, phishing, malware and botnets?
(Page 10)" <br><br>
with triage values: phase 1, code C (potential uses of data), and keyword
a (purpose).<br><br>
The possible requirement itself can then be considered during
deliberation on that charter question.<br><br>
Best Regards,<br>
Lisa<br><br>
<br>
At 04:04 PM 9/21/2016, Greg Aaron wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
boundary="_000_BN6PR13MB18437CAF5F2192CD3878E418D9F60BN6PR13MB1843namp_"<br>
<br>
<a name="_MailEndCompose"></a>Derived requirement: the data must be
available for this stated purpose. If something is required (as in
this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish
it. <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Gomes, Chuck
[<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cgomes@verisign.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG
meeting<br>
<br>
I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible
requirement?<br>
<br>
Chuck<br><br>
Sent from my iPhone<br><br>
On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron
<<a href="mailto:gca@icginc.com">gca@icginc.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Dear Chuck:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in
the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at
registration data. Review of registration dates, nameservers,
contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD
contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry
operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these
periodic security checks.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>So I suggest we leave it in. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>All best,<br>
<dd>--Greg<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Gomes,
Chuck<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG
meeting<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached
file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and
hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible
requirements. If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please
identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to
the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss. If not, I
suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to
delete them all.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Chuck<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Lisa
Phifer<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG
meeting<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Dear all,<br><br>
<dd>With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small
excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list,
containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible
deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these
PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them
codes and keywords. WG members are therefore asked to consider if
and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS.<br><br>
<dd>Best regards,<br>
<dd>Lisa<br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote:<br>
<dd>3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list<br>
</i>
<dd>· Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked
"??")<br>
<dd>· Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings<br>
<dd>· Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to
include them<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Action item #2</b>: WG members to review latest version of triaged
possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order
to commence deliberations. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Action item #3</b>: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged
PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's
meeting<br><br>
</dl>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>