comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17

Download

comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17@icann.org

June 2017

2 participants
2 discussions

[Comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17] Fw: Comments to Draft Framework for Registry Operator to Respond to Security Threats
by krishna June 17, 2017

June 17, 2017

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 2:13 PM, krishna <chrisum24(a)yahoo.in> wrote: Dear ICANN Please find my attached comments to the draft framework for Registry Operator to Respond to Security Threats. Regards R.R. Krishnaa

1 0

[Comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17] comment
by Ricardo Holmquist June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Good afternoon, I think theses phrase: * "If and when requests are categorized as “High Priority” and of a legitimate and credible origin, then as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours of acknowledging receipt, the Registry Operator can acknowledge the threat and communicate its planned steps to mitigate the security threat. When incidents are not “High Priority,” the ROs are encouraged to respond within 24 hours with details of what they will be doing moving forward, to include that they may be doing nothing. It is encouraged that ROs communicate the analysis of the threat to the requestor in order to clarify why they may or may not be taking further action or that mitigation should be handled through a different party".* In the last page of the document should be rephrased or enhanced. Particularly in the "Registry Operator can acknowledge..", it should say "RO must acknowledge" or even "RO might acknowledge", but the *can* seems to state a permission to move ahead. Also "..doing moving forward, to include that they may be doing nothing..', seems to be pointing for this action by the RO, when it should be in most cases the least desirable action. I recommend finalizing with "..moving forward.", the next phrase includes the doing nothing condition. thanks Ricardo Holmquist ISOC Venezuela

1 0

Results per page: