Jothan,
It is always interesting how people can examine the same set of facts and come away with a different perspective.
My thoughts after finding out the complete set of facts, as opposed to speculating while trying to figure out why I was unable to access the CPWG call, is as follows:
- I am glad that Article 21 of NIS 2.0 recognizes the vital importance of supply chain security for essential entities. While I hope we learn more about the miscommunication between MarkMonitor and GoDaddy, there was clearly a breakdown in the supply chain that should have been prevented.
- Next, I thought back to the origins of WHOIS data in allowing people to contact a network operator when there was a technical issue. While this Zoom outage was heard around the world almost instantaneously. What if this “miscommunication” impacted a small SME like the ones that Jothan and I operate. It would be nice for someone to be able to contact that business owner to get them back online.
- I was glad that the NIS 2.0 Cooperation Group guidance properly raised the bar in recommending the syntactical and operational use of email AND telephone. The default business practice for most ICANN contracting parties is to verify ONLY the email operationally. In this case with the domain name being removed from the zone file, it would have likely impacted the sending or receiving of email to that domain. Therefore, this is an excellent use case for having MULTIPLE verified means of communicating with a Registrant in the event of an issue with their domain name. No single point of failure regarding “contactability.”
Best regards,
Michael