August 2013 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Addressing the Consequences of Name Collisions
by Phil Corwin Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Query: The staff recommendations resulting from the Name Collision study have just been put out for public comment. It suggests that for the 80% of gTLD applications deemed Low Risk that there be two sequential waiting periods, of 120 days plus 30 days, before domains at those new gTLDs go live. That delay period runs from the date of signing the registry agreement with ICANN. While not strictly a BC issue, since many on the list are either affiliated with or working with applicants, does that result in any significant additional delay since after the date of agreement signing given that there is still a sunrise registration period, marketing efforts must be engaged in, etc. I’m just interested in appraising the real world impact in a broader context. For the 20% of applications deemed to be of Uncalculated Risk, the study recommends an additional study that will run 3-6 months. Two applications -- .home and .corp – are deemed High Risk and would be put on indefinite hold. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:18 PM To: Phil Corwin Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Addressing the Consequences of Name Collisions [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05aug13-en.htm ________________________________ Addressing the Consequences of Name Collisions 5 August 2013 As directed by the ICANN Board of Directors on 18 May 2013, ICANN commissioned and today releases the results of a study that considers the likelihood and impact of name space collisions between applied-for new gTLD strings and non-delegated TLDs. Additionally, the study also reviewed the possibility of collisions arising from the use of X.509 digital certificates. Background: In a study published in January 2013, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) identified fact that some certificate authorities issue X.509 certificates for domain names that are not resolvable in the public DNS. Such issues identified in SAC 057, as well as in SAC 045, are symptoms of entities that have local environments that include strong assumptions about the number of top-level domains and/or have introduced local top-level domains in private namespaces that may conflict with names yet to be allocated. These private namespaces sometimes "leak" into the public DNS (either through misconfiguration or the use of old software), meaning that requests for resources on private networks could end up querying the public-facing DNS Root Servers and hence "colliding" with the delegated new gTLD. The Study: On 18 May 2013, the ICANN Board approved a resolution calling for a detailed study of the name collision issue. ICANN contracted with Interisle Consulting Group, LLC to collect and analyze the necessary data on all applied-for strings. The resulting study, Name Collision in the DNS<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-02aug13-en.…> [PDF, 3.34 MB], identifies three categories of strings by the potential risk of name space collision: * Low Risk: 80% of applied-for strings. * Uncalculated Risk: 20% of applied-for strings. * High Risk: 2 strings (.home, .corp). To minimize the likelihood of any impact, ICANN proposes to the community several mitigation measures to be taken as described in an accompanying staff recommendation paper, New gTLD Collision Risk Management<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/new-gtld-collision-mitigat…> [PDF, 166 KB]. They include: * Proceeding with contracting and delegation of those strings categorized as "low risk" (80%) but recommending additional mitigation measures which should not materially impact their timeline for delegation. * Conducting further study on those strings categorized as "uncalculated risk" (20%) anticipated to take 3-6 months to complete. * Delaying contracting and delegation of the two "high risk" strings until mitigation efforts can place them in the "low risk" category. New gTLD Security and Stability: Throughout the development of the New gTLD program, the security and stability of the Domain Name System has remained the paramount concern of the ICANN community. ICANN staff has prepared an information sheet, Secure and Stable Introduction of new gTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/intro-new-gtlds-05aug13-en…> [PDF, 102 KB], that describes the measures ICANN has taken to ensure the introduction of new gTLDs will not jeopardize that commitment. Public Comment: At this time, the mitigation steps outlined in the staff recommendation paper are proposals only and community input is strongly suggested. As a result, ICANN has opened a formal process for soliciting public comment. The form for submitting public comment and the calendar for doing so is available here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-05aug13-en.htm>. Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Process: ICANN takes this opportunity to inform the community that it has updated its risk management procedures for improved reporting and response to any unforeseen issues arising from the delegation of new gTLDs. Members of the community are urged to familiarize themselves with the process available for review here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/vulnerability-disclosure-05aug…> [PDF, 628 KB]. This message was sent to pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com<mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [iContact - Try It Free!] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9829339&l=6333&s=7I8Y&m=917…> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13

1 0

FW: New ICA Post on the LRO
by Phil Corwin Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

FYI/BC members may find my latest opinion piece of some interest--- http://internetcommerce.org/LROlooksDOA LRO Looks DOA The Legal Rights Objection (LRO) mechanism administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on behalf of ICANN is starting to look like the reverse FISA Court of domain name system (DNS) rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) at the top level. In FISA Court, the government always wins - at WIPO, the LRO complainant always loses. The FISA Court is of course the venue in which the U.S. government requests a surveillance warrant against a suspected foreign intelligence agent and is never denied (well, almost never - since the process started in 1979, 11 requests have been denied out of a total of 33,942 received through the end of 2012[1]). FISA Court proceedings are secret and non-adversarial, with only government lawyers presenting arguments. In contrast, the decisions resulting from LRO proceedings are published, and both complainant and respondent have equal ability to present their arguments. Yet, as of Friday, August 2nd all 28 of the decided LRO complaints, out of a total of 69 filed, resulted in losses for the complainants[2]. The lopsided results arouse suspicions that trademark interests may have been fighting the last war and too intensely focused on potential cybersquatting at the second level (a concern that we believe is overblown due to the low traffic prospects for many new gTLDs). They consequently sought and obtained the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC), Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) RPMs - and also proposed other second level remedies such as a Global Protected Marks List (GPML) that ICANN did not grant. Yet they may have failed to adequately consider whether top level protections were sufficient, and in particular whether the threshold standard for successfully prosecuting a LRO was unattainably high. As Thomas O'Toole observed in an excellent analysis recently posted on Bloomberg BNA's E-Commerce and Tech Law Blog[3]: [T]he only surprise the future might hold is the faint prospect that a WIPO panelist might actually rule in favor of a trademark owner...The biggest lesson so far has been that the Legal Rights Objection process is wholly ineffective for trademark owners seeking to knock down proposed domains containing generic strings. In many cases, companies owning marks for terms such as EXPRESS, HOME, VIP, LIMITED, MAIL, TUNES have lost LROs to domain applicants with no intellectual property rights in those terms whatsoever. Pinterest's failed challenge to Amazon's proposed .pin domain was particularly ominous for mark owners, because Amazon seems pretty clearly to be moving in on Pinterest's business... The reason for this dour outlook can be found in passages from two early LRO rulings: the first one, Right at Home v. Johnson Shareholdings Inc., No. LRO2013-0300 (WIPO, July 3, 2013); and the second, my favorite, Express LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, No. LRO2013-0022 (WIPO, July 9, 2013)... In Right at Home, panelist Robert A. Badgley offered the first interpretation of key terms in Section 3.5 of ICANN's New gTLD Applicant Guidebook<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. The guidebook uses highly qualified language, directing LRO panelists to decide whether the proposed new domain "takes unfair advantage" of the trademark owner's rights, or "unjustifiably impairs" the value of the mark, or creates an "impermissible likelihood of confusion" between the mark and the proposed domain. In Badgley's view, this language creates a very high burden for trademark-based objections...Obviously, it is going to be very difficult for any trademark owner to demonstrate that a proposed domain is so fishy it satisfies the "something untoward ... if not to the level of bad faith" standard... The second opinion, Express LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, was one of the better opinions (and I am including the federal court stuff that we wade through every day) I have read in a while. Panelist Frederick M. Abbott carefully summarized the arguments on each side (there are good lessons here for attorneys working on the next round of legal rights objections), and the law that he was required to apply to the dispute. When Abbott turned to the reasoning behind his decision to reject Express LCC's objection to the proposed .express top-level domain, I got that sense that this panelist was a teeny bit irked that ICANN itself had not made the hard policy choices that the LRO had just dropped in his lap. It's one thing to ask a panelist to transfer a domain name that might have cost the registrant $10 or so; and it's quite another to ask a panelist to upset an investment of at least a half-million dollars in a new top-level domain. All based on a trademark registration for a generic term, in a single market, issued by a single government entity. Abbott declined to do it... These two opinions, taken together, look like a terminal diagnosis for trademark owners with rights in generic terms. Right at Home creates a very permissive standard for what constitutes "unfair advantage" by a domain applicant. Express LLC states, almost categorically, that it is "not reasonable" to allow a trademark owner for a generic term to prevent that term from being used as a top-level domain. O'Toole goes on to speculate that a trademark owner like Express LLC will have equally poor chances of success if it attempts to block others' use of such hypothetical second level domains as clothing.express, fashion.express, or shoes.express using the traditional UDRP or the new TMC and URS RPMs -- because all of them focus on the domain name to the left of the dot and pay no heed to the gTLD to the right - and because Express holds no trademark rights in those hypothetical generic terms on the left side. We largely agree with his analysis, and suspect that this could be the next big trademark protection issue looming on ICANN's horizon as brands complain about the necessity and cost of registering relevant domains at a gTLD that matches one of its trademarks but is operated by a third party (and, by the way, it's not clear that a brand like Express would have any special "sunrise" registration priority for potential second level domains along the lines of O'Toole's speculation). Other questions arise, such as whether Federal Express should have priority rights to, or a potential infringement claim against, federal.express. Of course, no one was reckless enough to pay a $185,000 gTLD application fee, plus multiple related legal, consulting, and technical costs, to try to "squat' at the top level on a unique trademark like Google or Microsoft. But when it comes to a dictionary word like Express, unless the applicant was so clueless as to propose its use solely for fashionable clothing, the LRO is essentially useless - and that may be the correct result. Indeed, short of halting the program, it's not really clear how one can have a generic word TLD program without allowing the addition of top level domains that are identical to someone's trademark for something; and that alone is not sufficient to prove trademark infringement. Domain industry observers such as Andrew Allemann have opined that "The LRO is working just fine, thank you"[4], weighing in with this analysis: The LRO was created to assuage fears that someone would cybersquat on a top level domain...Objections were filed against .VIP, .mail, and .home. Now, you tell me: when you hear these terms, what brand do you think is being cybersquatted? Many of the objections were filed by competing applicants that engaged in trademark frontrunning by obtaining dubious trademarks for the string. Others, such as the United States Postal Service's objection to .mail, were based on stretched interpretations of a trademark (and that's being generous). Another industry analyst, Kevin Murphy, has just declared that he will no longer report automatically on forthcoming WIPO decisions in LRO cases, stating[5]: The Legal Rights Objection has, I think, said pretty much everything it's going to say in this new gTLD application round. I'm feeling pretty confident we can predict that all outstanding LROs will fail. This prediction is based largely on the fact that the 69 LROs filed in this round all pretty much fall into three categories. * Front-running. These are the cases where the objector is an applicant that secured a trademark on its chosen gTLD string, usually with the dot, just in order to game the LRO process... * Brand v Brand. The objector may or may not be an applicant too, but both it and the respondent both own legit trademarks on the string in question. WIPO's LRO panelists have made it clear, most recently yesterday in Merck v Merck (pdf<http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0068.p…>) and Merck v Merck (pdf<http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0069.p…>), that having a famous brand does not give you the right to block somebody else from owning a matching famous brand as a gTLD. * Generic trademarks. Cases where an owner of a legit brand that matches a dictionary word files an objection against an applicant for the same string that proposes to use it in its generic sense. See Express v Donuts<http://domainincite.com/13691-donuts-beats-dot-brand-in-fight-over-express-…>, for example. Panelists have found that unless there's some nefarious intent by the applicant, the mandatory second-level rights protection mechanisms new gTLD registries must abide by are sufficient to protect trademark rights. In short, the LRO may be one of many deterrents to top-level cybersquatting, but has proven itself an essentially useless cash sink if you want to prevent the use of a trademark at the top level. The impact of this, I believe, will be to give new gTLD consultants another excellent reason to push defensive gTLD applications on big brands in future new gTLD rounds. We largely agree with Murphy's analysis. There may well be a few cases in the remaining objections to be adjudicated by WIPO in which the complainant prevails. But we suspect that they will be such unique outliers that they will actually reinforce what an exceedingly narrow remedy the LRO has turned out to be. That limited utility has already led one disgruntled complainant/competing applicant to declare, "Seems the entire WIPO LRO process was set-up to fail by ICANN with the guidelines they gave the Panelists."[6] And, as Murphy observes, filing a LRO with WIPO is not inexpensive. Total filing fees for a single objection to a single new gTLD application can range from $10,000 for a single-expert panel, and up to $23,000 for a 3-expert panel[7]. On top of the fees there are of course legal costs for the attorney preparing the complaint and related expenses for amassing documentation. If the LRO continues to be a preordained shutout for complainants then it is unlikely that it will be used very much at all in the second round of gTLD applications unless significant - and undoubtedly controversial - changes are made in the adjudication standard to give complainants a higher probability of prevailing. As for the other objection procedure available to third parties, the Community Objection[8] administered by the International Centre for Expertise of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce), no judgment can yet be rendered on its efficacy because the Center has yet to issue a single decision on the dozens of cases[9] filed with it. However, with standing limited to established institutions associated within a clearly defined community objectors first have to surmount that procedural hurdle, and then make the string substantive case that there is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. Additionally, complaints were voiced at the recent Public Forum in Durban that ICC fees[10] , which begin at 17,000 Euro but can quickly mount given the 450 Euro hourly rate for expert arbitrators, are not affordable for many community organizations. Summing up, the LRO may well have been an effective deterrent against applications for unique trademarked terms but has so far been useless in regard to applications for generic word trademarks, regardless of the trademark's strength and legitimacy. Its lack of general applicability also seems to be setting up a series of second level domain disputes that may well be outside the existing scope of the UDRP, URS, TMC, or other available rights protection and prioritization mechanisms. All of this may lead to further debate within ICANN on the appropriate scope of trademark rights protections- as well as litigation being filed by unsuccessful complainants who refuse to take WIPO's decision as the final judgment on their claims. The clear lesson to brand owners of generic word trademarks is this: If and when the second round of new gTLD applications commences, if you wish to own your trademark at the top level of the DNS (or at least stop others from owning it) you had better open your wallet and apply for it. That compulsion toward unwanted defensive registrations is almost sure to generate further controversy amid charges that ICANN has developed a Midas Touch-like mechanism for generating perpetual revenues for application and use fees for the protection of dictionary words. Of course, the inflow of defensive applications for generic word trademarks could be a mere trickle compared to the potential surge of defensive and offensive applications for non-trademarked generic words if ICANN ultimately spurs the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice to prohibit "closed generic" gTLDs unless they satisfy a high public interest standard. In that scenario, every company of any heft will have to seriously consider gTLD applications for the major language words describing its key activities and products, lest a competitor do so first and lock them away. But that's an issue falling outside any trademark protection debate and a discussion for another day. [1]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court [2]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ [3]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://www.bna.com/icann-legal-rights-b17179875369/ [4]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://domainnamewire.com/2013/08/01/the-lro-is-working-just-fine-thank-you/ [5]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://domainincite.com/13949-thats-all-folks-no-more-lro-news [6]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://www.thedomains.com/2013/07/31/constantinos-roussos-of-dotmusic-limit… [7]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/fees/ [8]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i… [9]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883 [10]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-LRO-webpost.docx>http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i… Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13 ________________________________ ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ICA Mail" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-mail+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:ica-mail+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to ica-mail(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:ica-mail@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ica-mail. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-mail/8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E…. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ________________________________ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court [2] http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ [3] http://www.bna.com/icann-legal-rights-b17179875369/ [4] http://domainnamewire.com/2013/08/01/the-lro-is-working-just-fine-thank-you/ [5] http://domainincite.com/13949-thats-all-folks-no-more-lro-news [6] http://www.thedomains.com/2013/07/31/constantinos-roussos-of-dotmusic-limit… [7] http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/fees/ [8] http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i… [9] http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883 [10] http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i…

7 24

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Thanks, Marie. I think this is a good approach. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:42:08 To: <stephvg(a)gmail.com>; <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: <susank(a)fb.com>; <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) Dear all, I don't know the politics and history, but wonder if we can find a middle ground: eventually we'd like the system to be the same everywhere, for everyone. So for that long game, and to give us something to refer back to without putting anyone on the spot right now, could we replace Stéphane's suggestion with something more generic, e.g.: "The BC looks forward to active involvement in this debate as it goes forward and hopes that the entire community will work towards one unified model for all registration data in the future, to the benefit of all Internet users and the entire DNS industry." Obviously deferring to John, Marilyn and the other experts here! Marie From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg(a)gmail.com Sent: mardi 6 août 2013 11:33 To: john(a)crediblecontext.com Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; J. Scott Evans; Smith, Bill; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) Thanks John. I really am not looking to light a fuse. I am looking to address a problem that repeatedly vexes Internet users. They just do not understand why they have to face such varying levels of WHOIS format, complexity and operation in their daily domain-owning lives. And they tend to own both cc and g domains regardless, according to their needs. However as said before, I understand your concerns. Your suggestion to approach Byron discreetly may be a good "diplomatic" move. I would support. I would also support Marilyn's suggestion to check where the rest of the CSG is on this issue. 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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- 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/> Le 6 août 2013 à 03:02, john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit : Stephane, As you know, I am not afraid to light a fuse, but make no mistake in my judgement that this will be lighting a fuse. Perhaps we can let Byron (new chair of the ccNSO council know what we are up to. I would be more than happy to make the contact as he is Canadian and will likely take it politely if not well. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) From: stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank(a)fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com> > Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >, "john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> " <john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> >, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > 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 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- 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/> Le 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com <mailto:susank@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> " <john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> >, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >, "stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> " <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> " <john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> > To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >; stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >, stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > To: "<stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> >" <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.stephanevangelder.com…> ---------------- 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/> Le 5 août 2013 à 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > To: "stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> " <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.stephanevangelder.com…> ---------------- 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/> Le 3 août 2013 à 17:53, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.icann.org/en/groups/…> . Public comment page is here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/groups/o…> and the EWG Wiki page is here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/disp…> . 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>

3 2

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
by stephvg＠gmail.com Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

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 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 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)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(a)yahoo.com> > Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM > To: "john(a)crediblecontext.com" <john(a)crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>, "stephvg(a)gmail.com" <stephvg(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)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(a)yahoo.com > > > From: "john(a)crediblecontext.com" <john(a)crediblecontext.com> > To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; stephvg(a)gmail.com > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)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(a)yahoo.com> >> Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm >> To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>, stephvg(a)gmail.com >> Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)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(a)yahoo.com >> >> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> >> To: "<stephvg(a)gmail.com>" <stephvg(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)yahoo.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> >>>> To: "stephvg(a)gmail.com" <stephvg(a)gmail.com> >>>> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)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(a)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(a)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> >> >> > >

6 8

Re: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

I do think that there are strong sensitivities. I already proposed a more genteel approach for understanding the CCNSO's views and priorities, which I didn't see any forthcoming interest in. I stand behind my suggestion for focusing on gTLDs, and proceeding with a more collaborative approach in engaging w ccNSO. As noted, I can suppot Marie's language. But also, the CSG has discussed having the Cross Constituency bkft w the CCNSO in BA. If so, the topics will likely be ICANN governance and budget, Strat plan. But a good opportunity to have civil engagements. . Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: john(a)crediblecontext.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:02:31 To: <stephvg(a)gmail.com>; <susank(a)fb.com> Cc: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) Stephane, As you know, I am not afraid to light a fuse, but make no mistake in my judgement that this will be lighting a fuse. Perhaps we can let Byron (new chair of the ccNSO council know what we are up to. I would be more than happy to make the contact as he is Canadian and will likely take it politely if not well. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) From: stephvg(a)gmail.com Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank(a)fb.com> Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>, "john(a)crediblecontext.com" <john(a)crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> 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 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com <mailto:susank@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. Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> " <john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> >, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >, "stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> " <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> " <john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> > To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >; stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >, stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > To: "<stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> >" <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.stephanevangelder.com…> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domain…> fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> Le 5 août 2013 à 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > To: "stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> " <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.stephanevangelder.com…> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domain…> fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> Le 3 août 2013 à 17:53, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.icann.org/en/groups/…> . Public comment page is here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/groups/o…> and the EWG Wiki page is here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/disp…> . 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>

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

I would like to find a way to include Bill's call for an approach that addresses these concerns. Many members of the BC are here for SSR concerns, which is inclusive of the role of Trademarks but is a broader concen. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Smith Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:36:50 To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> Cc: <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) I agree with the "entity" changes but do not agree to the deletion of the text associated with concerns related to a centralized aggregation of security professional information and the associated operation of an information and access control system. These are very real concerns. On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:31 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > wrote: Sorry for that. Jetlag. j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) J. Scott, Could you send me the doc? I can't seem to locate the most current version. Thanks, Bill On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:25 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > wrote: 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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > To: "<stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> >" <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- 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/> Le 5 août 2013 à 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@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(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > To: "stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> " <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@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(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- 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/> Le 3 août 2013 à 17:53, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@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 <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-repor…> . Public comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.…> here <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-…> and the EWG Wiki page is here <https://community.icann.org/display/WG/Explore+the+Draft+Next&#…> . 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> <BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1] -JSE3.doc>

3 3

Study on name collision risks with new gTLDs
by svg＠stephanevangelder.com Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Colleagues, FYI. https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05aug13-en.htm 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/

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
by J. Scott Evans Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Sorry for that. Jetlag. j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) J. Scott, Could you send me the doc? I can't seem to locate the most current version. Thanks, Bill On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:25 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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(a)yahoo.com > > > > > >________________________________ > From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> >To: "<stephvg(a)gmail.com>" <stephvg(a)gmail.com> >Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________ >>> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> >>>To: "stephvg(a)gmail.com" <stephvg(a)gmail.com> >>>Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org list" <bc-gnso(a)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(a)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(a)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 DelBiancoVice 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> > > >

3 6

FOR FINAL REVIEW: BC comments on proposed new gTLD Registry Agreement
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

ICANN posted the final new gTLD Registry Agreement for public comment. (<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm>) On todays BC member call we discussed two minor edits to the BC comment draft. (attached) Note that this comment is based closely on BC's March comments on previous Registry Agreement (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20new%20gTLD…>) Please do your final review by 8-Jun-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN by the deadline of 11-Jun. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Elisa Cooper for work on this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

12 22

NomCom Election: Reminder - Voting Closes Wednesday, Aug. 7th 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

Dear BC Members, This is an election reminder regarding the currently open voting period for the BC Nominating Committee Delegates for 2014. Please note that the voting period closes on Wednesday, Aug. 7th 2013. If you have any questions regarding the election please don't hesitate to contact me. Votes need to be submitted via the ballots sent to primary contacts for all paid up members, using the bcvotes(a)hotmail.com email address. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0