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

[Comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17] NCSG submission
by Rafik Dammak Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

Hi, I am submitting the NCSG comment on the draft framework. Best, Rafik Dammak

1 0

[Comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17] IPC Comment on Draft Framework for the Registry Operator to Respond to Security Threats
by Greg Shatan Aug. 2, 2017

Aug. 2, 2017

The Intellectual Property Constituency appreciates the opportunity to provide the attached comments regarding the Draft Framework for the Registry Operator to Respond to Security Threats. Respectfully Submitted, Gregory S. Shatan President, IPC

1 0

[Comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Framework for Registry Operators to Respond to Security Threats
by Steve DelBianco July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comment on the draft Framework for Registry Operators to Respond to Security Threats. (ICANN comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-framework-registry-respond-secu… ) This comment was drafted by Denise Michel. It was approved in accord with the BC charter. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

[Comments-ro-security-framework-14jun17] Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) comments on Draft Framework for the Registry Operator to Respond to Security Threats
by svg＠milathan.ltd July 27, 2017

July 27, 2017

Please find attached, in PDF format, the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) comments on Draft Framework for the Registry Operator to Respond to Security Threats. In the interest of time, the RySG did not conduct a formal vote on these comments. They were circulated and debated on our mailing list, with no member expressing opposition to their submission. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any member of the RySG Executive Committee should you have any questions. Best regards, Stéphane Van Gelder RySG Vice Chair (Policy)

1 0

[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