Thank you for the clarification, Bart. Now it's fine with me. I misunderstood the Subsection c of Scope 1. I understand you are saying "qualification" means "decision on whether a class of incidents (for example, huge spamming in general) is qualified to be handled in this WG." I thought "qualification" means "decision on whether each real incident (for example, a specific spamming activity just happened) should to be shared among and responded by ccTLDs." Regards, Hiro On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:08:32 -0700 Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Hiro, Theintention of the charter was that your concern was captured in the scope section: "1. Defining the relevant elements of the following mechanisms: .... Subsection c. the qualification of incidents and associated escalation procedures. ..." Would address your concern? Kind regards, Bart
On 7/15/09 1:10 PM, "HiroHOTTA" <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Thank you, Bart.
It's pretty much comprehensive.
If I could pose a comment, I think it's important to pre-define the scope of "what kind of events are defined as incidents." For examaple, could a huge spamming be an incident we consider? Could a whole DNS failure of a single ccTLD, which may impact all the domain names having NameServers under the ccTLD, be an incident we consider?
So, how about adding an item
Defining the kinds of incidents that the mechanism covers.
to B. Scope of activities
Hiro
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:06:10 -0700 Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Chris, Included is the draft charter for the Emergency Response Planning Working Group for adoption by the Council. If the Council could take a vote before the end of next week, it would be great, Kind regards, Bart