Note that Janis & Rod made the decision to make no changes in the AoC SSR RT but did change the Whois RT to four GNSO reps. Chuck From: Janis Karklins [mailto:janis.karklins@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:04 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-discussion@icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Chuck Thank you for explaining preoccupations of the GNSO in relation to the size and composition of the next two review teams. In this respect I would like to inform you that the Selectors examined your comments and found that some of them are well grounded, some of them – hints to over-estimation of the role of the RT and the scope of its activities. The efficiency of the work of the RT and the resource implications still remain serious considerations for the Selectors. Therefore, in the spirit of cooperation and taking into account GNSO comments and as a possible compromise, the Selectors are suggesting that the size and composition of the SSR RT would remain unchanged, but the WHOIS RT would get 2 additional GNSO representatives, while quota of others would remain unchanged. Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 4 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent expert 1-2 2 (law enforcement/privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13-14 12 I hope that GNSO and others will accept this compromise proposal with understanding and that it will serve as a basis of common agreement. Pls advice. Thank you in advance JK From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: piektdiena, 2010. gada 11. jūnijā 17:00 To: Janis Karklins; soac-discussion@icann.org Cc: Rod Beckstrom; Donna Austin; Olof Nordling Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Janis, After fairly extensive discussion on the GNSO Council list and additional discussion in our Council meeting yesterday, the GNSO feels very strongly that it is important to have four representatives on each of the RTs. I have included a sampling of some of the comments and rationale provided by various Councilors below. Note that most of these comments were reinforced by multiple Councilors and that there was overall agreement in the Council meeting for the position. Chuck General Comments · I'm not sure that an additional 2 GNSO reps will be detrimental to efficiency, and I should think it would actually add to the credibility of the process - which leaves "budgetary limitations" as the remaining (relatively unconvincing) reason. · It seems to me that the ramifications of the selectors rejecting GNSO input as to participant number are potentially significant. In particular, the irony of doing so while the accountability and transparency review is underway is pretty amazing. I think that would play pretty well (against ICANN, that is) in a number of important fora. · It'd be a lot easier if they'd just default to four across the board in order to ensure community representation and diverse skill sets at the table, rather than turning RT size into a needless source of angst. · It is perfectly reasonable to allow one seat each to the SSAC, GAC, and ASO. But I think it's totally implausible to assume a well represented RT with only two for the GNSO and one each for the ccNSO and the ALAC. I believe we make a very strong statement insisting that each of those are doubled - four for the GNSO (one for each SG, no less), two each for the ccNSO and the ALAC due to the size of their memberships. That would make the RT 14 members, and that is certainly workable and more realistic. SSR RT · All three (SSR) are already huge issues and will directly affect all the rollout and use of TLD’s, IDN_TLDs, and ccTLDs and some of the issues that could be coming would include: - Punycode storage of IDN names – Neither any human nor most existing security mechanisms (anti-virus, firewalls, etc) can read it directly. It is the main reason you need “standard script” usage. - DNSSec – Can it and should it be pushed to all TLDs? (After a demo of DNS hacks a couple weeks back, I’m not sure I will ever trust a wireless hotspot fully again.) - DNSSec – Credentials – Key distribution chains and processes, rollover mechanisms, and there will likely be some of revocation process needed for bad behavior. - DNSSec – Operational issues yet to be determined too. DNSSec generates a 30x increase in response traffic for instance plus signature processing overhead. - Network management systems likewise will likely have initial issues with IDNs too. - Increased discussions of “network cyber identity requirements” and how these might work in an IDN environment. - Routing reliability as IPv6 vastly increases the route table sizes - IPv6 reachability and initial usage rollouts. (Outside of Microsoft, I could not say that anyone on the globe has a large scale IPv6 infrastructure working yet.) - New “whois” issues that could be created by fact that more, maybe most, IPv6 addresses will be indirectly assigned through an ISP to the end user or organization rather than directly assigned via IANA and the RIRs. · From an operational point of view, with implementation of TLDs, ccTLDs, IDN_TLDs, DNSSec, and IPv6 plus the issues with route stability and huge growth in cybercrime; one could reasonably expect that many unseen/unknown operational issues will affect GNSO plans and policies. (and certainly keep the SSR busy!) · The economies and critical infrastructure (communications, power, financial, etc) of at least 50 nations around the globe are completely tied to the security, stability, and reliability of the Internet so SSR issues are considered very carefully by most governments. · The Commercial SG provides combined expertise in technical, operational and legal respect of security aspects of the DNS system. Whois RT · Whereas Internet users across the whole ICANN community are impacted by Whois policy, I don’t think there is any doubt that GNSO constituents are impacted the most. It is gTLD registrants whose data is displayed and used. It is gTLD contracted parties who are required to implement Whois and who best understand the customer service and operational issues related to Whois offerings. It is commercial gTLD registrants whose businesses are affected when IP rights are violated. It is noncommercial users who have most often pointed out the need for privacy of Whois information and noncommercial organizations that are impacted in similar ways as commercial businesses. · In addition, because of the GNSO’s long and belabored Whois policy development history and varied Whois operational offerings, the GNSO has the best source of Whois experts from various points of view. There is also good evidence that each SG provides a unique area of expertise and represents different points of view with regard to Whois policy. · Whois is one of the few areas where people who are generally like-minded can have VERY different positions. · There really has to be four for WHOIS, the perspectives of the SGs are just too variable for any two to represent the others, and the whole process could become a focal point of controversy. · I strongly oppose accepting only two seats on the Whois. New gTLDs RT · Similar arguments could be made for this future RT. From: owner-soac-discussion@icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM To: soac-discussion@icann.org Cc: 'Rod Beckstrom'; 'Donna Austin'; 'Olof Nordling' Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs Dear colleagues On behalf of Selectors I would like to propose that the size and composition of the two next review teams would be as follows: Security WHOIS GAC, including the Chair 2 1 GNSO 2 2 ccNSO 2 1 ALAC 2 1 SSAC 1 1 RSSAC 1 ASO 1 1 Independent expert 1-2 2 (law enforcement/privacy experts) CEO 1 1 13-14 10 I understand that your initial suggestions/requests were not fully accommodated, but for the sake of efficiency, credibility of the process, budgetary limitations Selectors have developed this proposal. If we would take into account all wishes, the RT size would be over 20 which in Selectors’ view is not credible option. I hope that proposal will be equally unacceptable for everybody. I would appreciate your comments or expression of non-objection in coming week. Only after assessment of the violence of your opposition the Selectors will make their proposal (in present form or modified) public. Best regards JK