Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois)
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@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@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com
From: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; stephvg@gmail.com Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com> Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, stephvg@gmail.com Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "<stephvg@gmail.com>" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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@yahoo.com
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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>
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@gmail.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:58:25 +0200 CC: jscottevans@yahoo.com; john@crediblecontext.com; bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org To: susank@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@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@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com From: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; stephvg@gmail.com Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com> Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, stephvg@gmail.com Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "<stephvg@gmail.com>" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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@yahoo.com From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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>
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@gmail.com Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com> Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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 ---------------- 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@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@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com From: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; stephvg@gmail.com Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com> Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, stephvg@gmail.com Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "<stephvg@gmail.com>" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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@yahoo.com From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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>
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 ---------------- 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 03:02, 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@gmail.com Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com> Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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 ---------------- 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@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@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com
From: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; stephvg@gmail.com Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com> Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, stephvg@gmail.com Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "<stephvg@gmail.com>" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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@yahoo.com
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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>
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg@gmail.com Sent: mardi 6 août 2013 11:33 To: john@crediblecontext.com Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; J. Scott Evans; Smith, Bill; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 6 août 2013 à 03:02, 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@gmail.com Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com> Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 6 août 2013 à 00:58, Susan Kawaguchi <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@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com _____ From: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; stephvg@gmail.com Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com> Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, stephvg@gmail.com Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com _____ From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "<stephvg@gmail.com>" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 5 août 2013 à 18:58, "J. Scott Evans" <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@yahoo.com _____ From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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 LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 3 août 2013 à 17:53, Steve DelBianco <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/o...> . Public comment page is here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ot...> and the EWG Wiki page is here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://community.icann.org/displ...> . 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>
I Likey.<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
+1 This is an elegant compromise. John, Marilyn, what are your thoughts? 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 13:00, J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com> a écrit :
I Likey.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; To: <stephvg@gmail.com>; <john@crediblecontext.com>; Cc: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com>; 'J. Scott Evans' <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; 'Smith, Bill' <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) Sent: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 10:42:08 AM
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg@gmail.com Sent: mardi 6 août 2013 11:33 To: john@crediblecontext.com Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; J. Scott Evans; Smith, Bill; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@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 ---------------- 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 03:02, 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@gmail.com Date: 8/5/13 4:58 pm To: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com> Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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 ---------------- 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@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@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 3:52 PM To: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com
From: "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; stephvg@gmail.com Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com> Date: 8/5/13 3:25 pm To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>, stephvg@gmail.com Cc: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@yahoo.com
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "<stephvg@gmail.com>" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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@yahoo.com
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: "stephvg@gmail.com" <stephvg@gmail.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso@icann.org list" <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@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@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>
All,
I am OK with this and made one change so that there is no mistaking the ultimate intent.
See below:
"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 registration data in all top level domains in the future, to the benefit of all Internet users and the entire DNS industry.”
Cheers,
Berard
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:51 AM, stephvg@gmail.com wrote:
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.”
ccTLDs often have stronger protections than do the gTLDs. There are a few that cause concern to global players, but for the most part, and I will ask for WITSA and AfiCTA and also Zahid to comment, ccTLD managers build infrastructure and engage locally in ways that gTLDs do not. It would be a great step forward if the BC could advance a listening and understanding session for BA during the breakfast. I will turn to Chris Chaplow, V.Chair of Finance and Operations whom I merely shadow in terms of expertise, but the ccNSO does the best job of analyzing the budget, for instance --not merely complaining as is what the Ry and RR do, and that is informative, but the ccNSO does an actual analysis, which all others benefit from and I can attest, as CSG participant, that the other sister constituencies also benefit from this sort of analysis. Maybe we can look for synergies, and then address differences. Marilyn Cade, CSG Officer CC: jscottevans@yahoo.com; marie.pattullo@aim.be; susank@fb.com; bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org From: john@crediblecontext.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 11-AUG: BC comments on Expert Working Group for Directory Services ( new Whois) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 06:32:51 -0700 To: stephvg@gmail.com All,I am OK with this and made one change so that there is no mistaking the ultimate intent.See below:"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 registration data in all top level domains in the future, to the benefit of all Internet users and the entire DNS industry.”Cheers,Berard Sent from my iPhone On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:51 AM, stephvg@gmail.com wrote: 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.”
participants (6)
-
J. Scott Evans -
John Berard -
john＠crediblecontext.com
-
Marie Pattullo -
Marilyn Cade -
stephvg＠gmail.com