FOR FINAL REVIEW: BC comments on proposed new gTLD Registry Agreement
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
The second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments, is now defining its work program. ATRT seeks input from the Community on questions for consideration. Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm>; the questions are here<http://www.icann.org/about/aoc-review/atrt/community-questions-02apr13-en.pd...>. On BC member calls today and on 22-May, we discussed areas where the BC might comment on these questions. The attached draft includes text from Stephane Van Gelder and Steve DelBianco. The final two paragraphs reflect today's discussion by J. Scott Evans and Chris Chaplow regarding consideration of public comments and whether public input should be required for registry contract changes. This comment period closes 9-June, so please Reply All by 8-June with any specific edits. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
Thanks Steve, Here's a v2 with just one proposed edit. I support this text as amended. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 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 7 juin 2013 à 01:50, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> a écrit :
The second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments, is now defining its work program. ATRT seeks input from the Community on questions for consideration. Public comment page is here; the questions are here.
On BC member calls today and on 22-May, we discussed areas where the BC might comment on these questions.
The attached draft includes text from Stephane Van Gelder and Steve DelBianco. The final two paragraphs reflect today's discussion by J. Scott Evans and Chris Chaplow regarding consideration of public comments and whether public input should be required for registry contract changes.
This comment period closes 9-June, so please Reply All by 8-June with any specific edits.
-- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
<BC Comment on ATRT-2 questions [v1].docx>
With attachment. Le 7 juin 2013 à 19:31, stephvg@gmail.com a écrit :
Thanks Steve,
Here's a v2 with just one proposed edit. I support this text as amended.
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 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 7 juin 2013 à 01:50, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> a écrit :
The second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments, is now defining its work program. ATRT seeks input from the Community on questions for consideration. Public comment page is here; the questions are here.
On BC member calls today and on 22-May, we discussed areas where the BC might comment on these questions.
The attached draft includes text from Stephane Van Gelder and Steve DelBianco. The final two paragraphs reflect today's discussion by J. Scott Evans and Chris Chaplow regarding consideration of public comments and whether public input should be required for registry contract changes.
This comment period closes 9-June, so please Reply All by 8-June with any specific edits.
-- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
<BC Comment on ATRT-2 questions [v1].docx>
Steve, Thanks for picking this up. I have tightened up the paragraph on the attached redline in two ways: Firstly the contract amendment is a following part of the same process. Secondly I have discovered that the whole RSEP process is actually a 2005 GNSO PDP (link) <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registry-services/final-rpt-registry-approv al-10july05> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registry-services/final-rpt-registry-approva l-10july05 so I think our recommendation needs to be to ask ATRT2 to a check implementation against this. I would like to see a mandatory public comment period, but as I read the PDP in Step 4 it is not mandatory If ICANN determines during the 15 calendar day "preliminary determination" period that the proposed registry service, does not raise significant Security or Stability (as defined below), or competition issues, registry operator or sponsoring organisation shall be free to deploy it upon such a determination. For the BC to ask for mandatory Public comment would be to ask for a new PDP. Yes? Perhaps we should leave that to ATRT2 who, I assume, will find that a complicated 2005 PDP is out of date in a new gTLD world. Best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris@andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Steve DelBianco Enviado el: viernes, 07 de junio de 2013 1:51 Para: bc-gnso@icann.org Asunto: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 8-JUNE: BC comments on Accountability and Transparency Review Team Questions The second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments, is now defining its work program. ATRT seeks input from the Community on questions for consideration. Public comment page is here <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm> ; the questions are here <http://www.icann.org/about/aoc-review/atrt/community-questions-02apr13-en.p df> . On BC member calls today and on 22-May, we discussed areas where the BC might comment on these questions. The attached draft includes text from Stephane Van Gelder and Steve DelBianco. The final two paragraphs reflect today's discussion by J. Scott Evans and Chris Chaplow regarding consideration of public comments and whether public input should be required for registry contract changes. This comment period closes 9-June, so please Reply All by 8-June with any specific edits. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net. The Working Group published its Initial Report (here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf>), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Public comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm> here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...>. Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments. The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions. And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net. The Working Group published its Initial Report (here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf>), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Public comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm> here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...>. Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments. The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions. And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>
Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS. On page 2, can we please add one bullet: Requiring a ‘thick’ WHOIS would: • improve response consistency, • improve stability, • improve access to WHOIS data, and • provide a more level playing field for competition between Registries. • enhance consumer/user protection Rationale: we’re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the benefit of users – not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details. Many thanks for considering the above, Marie From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Laura Covington Sent: dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22 To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote: As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net. The Working Group published its Initial Report (here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%20> ), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Public comment page is here <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...> . Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments. The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions. And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>
I agree with Marie’s addition. Anjali Karina Hansen Deputy General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> Start With Trust® Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS. On page 2, can we please add one bullet: Requiring a ‘thick’ WHOIS would: • improve response consistency, • improve stability, • improve access to WHOIS data, and • provide a more level playing field for competition between Registries. • enhance consumer/user protection Rationale: we’re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the benefit of users – not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details. Many thanks for considering the above, Marie From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Laura Covington Sent: dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22 To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net. The Working Group published its Initial Report (here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%20>), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...>. Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments. The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions. And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>
+1 Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:41 AM, "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org>> wrote: I agree with Marie’s addition. Anjali Karina Hansen Deputy General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> Start With Trust® Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS. On page 2, can we please add one bullet: Requiring a ‘thick’ WHOIS would: • improve response consistency, • improve stability, • improve access to WHOIS data, and • provide a more level playing field for competition between Registries. • enhance consumer/user protection Rationale: we’re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the benefit of users – not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details. Many thanks for considering the above, Marie From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Laura Covington Sent: dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22 To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net. The Working Group published its Initial Report (here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%20>), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...>. Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments. The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions. And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>
+2 Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 -----Original Message----- From: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:42 AM To: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> Cc: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>, "bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:41 AM, "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org>> wrote:
I agree with Marie¹s addition.
Anjali Karina Hansen Deputy General Counsel
Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> Start With Trust®
Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201
For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/253681314 03> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grp pro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us>
This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you.
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report
Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS.
On page 2, can we please add one bullet:
Requiring a Œthick¹ WHOIS would:
€ improve response consistency,
€ improve stability,
€ improve access to WHOIS data, and
€ provide a more level playing field for competition between Registries.
€ enhance consumer/user protection
Rationale: we¹re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the benefit of users not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details.
Many thanks for considering the above,
Marie
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Laura Covington Sent: dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22 To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report
Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries ‹ including legacy TLDs such as com and net.
The Working Group published its Initial Report (here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%2 0>), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future."
Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun 13-en.htm>.
Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments.
The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions.
And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft.
-- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
<BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>
RNA supports Marie’s important additions and the rest of the document as is. Thank you, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS. On page 2, can we please add one bullet: Requiring a ‘thick’ WHOIS would: • improve response consistency, • improve stability, • improve access to WHOIS data, and • provide a more level playing field for competition between Registries. • enhance consumer/user protection Rationale: we’re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the benefit of users – not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details. Many thanks for considering the above, Marie From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Laura Covington Sent: dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22 To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > wrote: As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net. The Working Group published its Initial Report (here <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%20> ), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Public comment page is here <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...> . Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments. The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions. And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>
Thanks to Elisa and Steve for this draft. Google supports this document as well as Marie's additional bullet point. Best, Andy On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>wrote:
RNA supports Marie’s important additions and the rest of the document as is.****
** **
Thank you,****
** **
RA****
** **
*Ron Andruff*
*RNA Partners*
*www.rnapartners.com *
** **
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marie Pattullo
*Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 *To:* bc-gnso@icann.org *Subject:* FW: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report****
** **
Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS.*** *
** **
On page 2, can we please add one bullet:****
** **
Requiring a ‘thick’ WHOIS would: ****
**• **improve response consistency,****
**• **improve stability,****
**• **improve access to WHOIS data, and****
**• **provide a more level playing field for competition between Registries.****
**• **enhance consumer/user protection****
** **
Rationale: we’re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the benefit of users – not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details.****
** **
Many thanks for considering the above,****
** **
Marie****
** **
** **
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Laura Covington *Sent:* dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22 *To:* Steve DelBianco *Cc:* bc-gnso@icann.org list *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report****
** **
Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa.
Sent from my iPhone****
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:****
As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for *all* gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net.****
** **
The Working Group published its Initial Report (here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%20>), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future."****
** **
Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...> .****
** **
Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments.****
** **
The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please *Reply All* before 2-Aug with edits or questions. ****
** **
And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft.****
** **
--****
Steve DelBianco ****
Vice chair for policy coordination****
Business Constituency****
** **
<BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>****
-- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
Same with PayPal. On Aug 2, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Andy Abrams <abrams@google.com<mailto:abrams@google.com>> wrote: Thanks to Elisa and Steve for this draft. Google supports this document as well as Marie's additional bullet point. Best, Andy On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> wrote: RNA supports Marie’s important additions and the rest of the document as is. Thank you, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30 To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS. On page 2, can we please add one bullet: Requiring a ‘thick’ WHOIS would: • improve response consistency, • improve stability, • improve access to WHOIS data, and • provide a more level playing field for competition between Registries. • enhance consumer/user protection Rationale: we’re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the benefit of users – not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details. Many thanks for considering the above, Marie From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Laura Covington Sent: dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22 To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report Looks good to us. Thanks, Elisa. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy TLDs such as com and net. The Working Group published its Initial Report (here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%20>), concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h...>. Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments. The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug with edits or questions. And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc> -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752<https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
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-report...>. 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.h...> here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-e...> and the EWG Wiki page is here<https://community.icann.org/display/WG/Explore+the+Draft+Next+Generation+gTL...>. 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
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>
+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<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@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-report...>. 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.h...> here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-e...> and the EWG Wiki page is here<https://community.icann.org/display/WG/Explore+the+Draft+Next+Generation+gTL...>. 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>
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 DelBiancoVice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
<BC Comments - EWG Draft Model [v1].doc>
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>
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<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@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@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> To: "stephvg@gmail.com<mailto:stephvg@gmail.com>" <stephvg@gmail.com<mailto:stephvg@gmail.com>> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso@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@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@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-report...>. 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.h...> here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-e...> and the EWG Wiki page is here<https://community.icann.org/display/WG/Explore+the+Draft+Next+Generation+gTL...>. 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 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 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>
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>
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>
participants (12)
-
Andy Abrams -
Chris Chaplow -
Elisa Cooper -
Hansen, Anjali -
J. Scott Evans -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Laura Covington -
Marie Pattullo -
Ron Andruff -
Smith, Bill -
stephvg＠gmail.com -
Steve DelBianco