<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Chuck
I also agree with Kristina, Mike, and Mary.
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 – Credintials – 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!)
As I said in my note the other week, 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.
Myself, I’d try to keep the 4 slots for the GNSO so we have a stronger input on
how SSR issues get resolved.
Take care
Terry
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:25 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
I agree with Kristina that it's an important issue on which there is a good
deal of experience within the GNSO.
I note that Janis' email on this issue mentioned "efficiency, credibility of
the process, [and] budgetary limitations" as reasons for the numbers given for
each upcoming RT. 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.
In addition, and although it's true that it's suggested they each get only 1
rep on the WHOIS RT, ccNSO and ALAC each get 2 on the SS RT. I am highly
reluctant to get into a "us vs. them" or "who 'deserves' more slots"
pre-selection contest amongst the ACSOs, but it seems to me as though this type
of artificial limitation of GNSO slots - as opposed to the suggested default of
4 per RT - will inevitably lead us there.
Chuck and others more experienced at this type of thing, will it be such a bad
strategy to ask for 4 GNSO slots (1 per SG) for each RT, but if the Selectors
feel (strongly) differently, they should give us better reasons for, say,
limiting the SS RT besides the general ones quoted by Janis?
That said, I'd hate to not get 4 GNSO reps at all for any RT ..... :(
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:
"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
To:
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
6/8/2010 3:07 PM
Subject:
RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Unfortunately, I don't have time for anything more elaborate or detailed and
won't until early next week.
_____
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:00 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
I was hoping for something a little more convincing to increase the chances of
convincing Janis. I think we have a pretty good argument for Whois.
Chuck
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:04 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
Important issue, extensive expertise within SGs, not as convinced as you are
that there aren't philosophical variances among the SGs. On a more practical
note, we've all already got too much going on without having to spend extra
time determining which SG person goes forward.
_____
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:58 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
Mike/Kristina,
Can you provide me some rationale to support 4 on the SSR RT?
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:51 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
Agree w. Kristina.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:22 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
Agree w/r/t/ Whois and disagree w/r/t SSR.
Don't believe we should be negotiating against ourselves by agreeing to two.
Also, 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.
_____
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:33 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Rosette, Kristina; MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
So far, I think everyone who has commented supports Tim’s suggestion that there
should be four GNSO members on the Whois RT and most seem to support a default
of one rep per SG for all RTs. I personally think that we might maximize our
chances of getting four on the Whois RT if we concede to having two on the SSR
RT and also think that it is fairly easy to make a strong case for that.
The Case for Four on the 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.
The Case for Two on the SSR RT
I believe that the SSR RT requires a higher degree of technical expertise than
policy expertise and is less dependent on SG areas of focus. I also believe
that the GNSO community as well as the ICANN community is much more united in
terms of SSR issues and hence representation from different sectors may not
necessarily produce significantly different contributions, especially when
compared to a topic like Whois. Particularly with regard to the GNSO, if each
SG endorses one candidate for the SSR team as proposed, I suspect that the SSR
RT would not be negatively impacted if the Selectors choose a RrSG candidate
over a RySG candidate or a NCSG candidate over a CSG candidate or any other
comparison because all of us will likely be putting forth strong security
experts.
The SSR RT may be an area where external experts may be especially helpful. By
having fewer reps from SOs and ACs, space may be available for a few more
experts.
My Conclusion
I suggest that I make the case for four GNSO reps on the Whois RT and agree to
two on the SSR team. This might set a good precedent for asking for four on
the New gTLD RT because that, like Whois, is a big GNSO issue and one that
there are clear variances in points of view from each SG.
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:46 AM
To: krosette@xxxxxxx; MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
agreed!
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_____
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2010 19:46
An: Mary Wong
Cc: GNSO Council
Betreff: RE: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
+1
_____
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:43 PM
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the
next RTs
I agree with Tim's arguments and suggestion for a response, and in addition
support Bill's suggestion that all RTs start with a default distribution of 1
rep per SG from the GNSO (with deviations being explained and justified
according to each RT scope/topic).
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:
William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC:
"GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
6/7/2010 11:05 AM
Subject:
Re: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Hi
It would be interesting to hear the rationale for reverting to the original
proposal of tiny unrepresentative RTs. In any event, I strongly agree with Tim
that 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. Same goes for the pending RT on
competition and consumer issues. As for security, I agree that two may be
relatively less problematic, but only relatively... it's more difficult to
judge ex ante what level of agreement there is or isn't here across some SGs on
the various issues.
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.
Bill
On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
> I'm not too concerned about having only two seats on the Security RT,
> but strongly oppose accepting only two seats on the Whois.
>
> 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.
>
> I realize the ALAC and ccNSO can defend themselves, but given the
> selectors concerns over the team size I think we should respond with a
> total picture of what we think the RT should look like and why.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on
> the next RTs
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 1:44 pm
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Please note what the AoC Selectors have proposed for the next two RTs.
> Please provide any comments you have on this list. Time permitting, we
> will also briefly discuss this in meeting on 10 June.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:50 PM
> To: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
> 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
>
>
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************
<http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An
Innovative Partnership
<http://www.piercelaw.edu/> Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An
Innovative Partnership
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|