RE: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't understand Liz to be suggesting that 'prioritization is only needed
when Staff is involved'.  Clearly, it is needed with regard to volunteer 
personnel as well.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 5:42 PM
> To: Liz Gasster
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of
> DNS CERT
> 
> Liz,
> 
> "I agree that the "prioritization" may not be an issue at the drafting
> team stage assuming that volunteers prepare the charter, but I also
> agree with Tim that prioritization would be needed in order to assure
> adequate GNSO staff support for a new WG"
> 
> Am I to understand that you consider that prioritization is only needed
> when Staff is involved, and not if volunteers do the work? If that is
> what you meant, I find that assertion extremely surprising.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 11 juin 2010 à 22:21, Liz Gasster a écrit :
> 
> >
> > Tim, Chuck and all,
> >
> > If I may comment from a staff perspective, I agree that the
> "prioritization" may not be an issue at the drafting team stage
> assuming that volunteers prepare the charter, but I also agree with Tim
> that prioritization would be needed in order to assure adequate GNSO
> staff support for a new WG, given the current workload.
> >
> > Also, I know this is an important issue for the community, and staff
> would of course support this group as requested by the SO/ACs to
> facilitate community consultation as needed, but I would note that the
> topic does not seem to be a policy development matter, which may be
> relevant when the Council considers other GNSO "prioritization"
> projects that are policy-related.
> >
> > Thanks, Liz
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:55 AM
> > To: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
> > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of
> DNS CERT
> >
> >
> > As you know Tim, the request from the ccNSO came this week, so this
> effort is not included in the prioritization exercise.  Going forward
> we will need to decide whether we include DTs in this. For now, as long
> as there are volunteers to work on this, it may be okay, and we seem to
> have a lot of volunteers.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> >> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:45 PM
> >> To: GNSO Council
> >> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept
> of
> >> DNS CERT
> >>
> >>
> >> How does this fit into our prioritization efforts? It's not on the
> >> current list of 15 projects. I would think that the RrSG would be
> >> interested in this effort, but I also think we need to figure out
> how
> >> it
> >> fits overall on the priority list. Of course, something we (RrSG)
> noted
> >> when completed our ratings was that three or four of the listed
> >> projects
> >> are very near end.
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept
> of
> >> DNS CERT
> >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Fri, June 11, 2010 10:05 am
> >> To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> I made similar points to Chris Wolf.  He understands that a charter
> >> cannot be completed before Brussels but would just like to see the
> work
> >> getting started on the charter. I totally support your suggestion,
> >> i.e.,
> >> "The intention and the status could be announced by Chris and
> yourself
> >> in Brussels and the chartering team could start drafting immediately
> >> afterwards.", and believe he is comfortable with that as well.
> >>
> >> But I would like to identify all charter DT volunteers by then if
> not
> >> before if possible.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the good comments.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:50 AM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: AW: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept
> of
> >> DNS CERT
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand Chris' request but would like to ask if the time
> pressure
> >> is that much that immediate action (before Brussels) is needed.
> >> We're really busy to cover all the more urgent items (e.g. New
> gTLDs,
> >> VI, PDP...) until that event.
> >>
> >> To avoid misunderstanding: there's great interest on CSG side to
> >> actively participate in a (pre-)WG offering technical, operational
> and
> >> managerial expertise, as well for chartering. But I don't see
> capacity
> >> available to be provided for immediate action.
> >>
> >>
> >> The intention and the status could be announced by Chris and
> yourself
> >> in
> >> Brussels and the chartering team could start drafting immediately
> >> afterwards.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Wolf-Ulrich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Juni 2010 03:41
> >> An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Betreff: [council] FW: Joint Working Group to consider concept of
> DNS
> >> CERT
> >> Wichtigkeit: Hoch
> >> I forwarded the following message to the Council the yesterday and
> >> added
> >> the topic to our agenda for our meeting under Other Business.
> >> Unfortunately, as we ran out of time, I failed to cover it.  My
> intent
> >> was to simply ask if anyone objected to considering the formation of
> a
> >> WG as described by Chris and if not, to request volunteers to start
> >> working on a possible charter with volunteers from the ccNSO.  So I
> >> will
> >> ask those questions now:
> >>
> >> 1.       Does anyone object to considering the formation of such a
> WG?
> >> Note that we would not make an official decision to support such a
> WG
> >> until after we see a draft charter.  If anyone objects, please
> >> communicate your objection not later than next Wednesday, 16 June.
> >> 2.       Assuming there is no opposition, who would like to
> volunteer
> >> for the charter drafting team?  Note that this is not a request for
> >> volunteers for what might eventually be a WG, but only for a charter
> >> DT.
> >> Regarding question 2, there have already been some volunteers in
> >> response to my message yesterday:
> >>
> >> ·         Terry Davis (NCA)
> >> ·         Rafik Damik (NCSG)
> >> ·         Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias)
> >> ·         Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR)
> >> ·         Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign).
> >> If anyone else wants to volunteer, please communicate your interest
> on
> >> this list not later than next Wednesday, 16 June.  We will then
> >> communicate the names and contact information to the ccNSO.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Chuck
> >>
> >> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:54 PM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck
> >> Cc: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr'
> >> Subject: Joint Working Group to consider concept of DNS CERT
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chuck,
> >>
> >> In our conversation last week we discussed the possibility of the
> gNSO
> >> and ccNSO (along with other relevant ACs and independent experts)
> >> setting up the working group contemplated in the joint Chair's
> letter
> >> to ICANN of 25 March 2010 as soon as possible.
> >>
> >> I put this proposal to the ccNSO council on our call of 8 June and
> >> confirm that the council has agreed that in the event of the
> proposal
> >> also being agreed by the gNSO council, a small joint drafting team
> >> should work before Brussels to draft the charter for the
> establishment
> >> of a Working Group comprising representatives of ICANN's Security
> and
> >> Stability Advisory Committee, Root Server System Advisory Committee,
> >> GAC, ALAC, CERT operators and ccTLD and gTLD managers to draw upon
> >> their
> >> collective expertise and to solicit their input on:
> >> ·         the broad concept of a DNS-CERT;
> >> ·         the current work being undertaken to mitigate DNS-related
> >> threats;
> >> ·         the actual level, frequency and severity of these threats;
> >> ·         the gaps (if any) in the current security response to DNS
> >> issues;
> >> ·         whether or not a DNS-CERT is a proposal they support; and
> >> ·         if so, the logistics of the proposal.
> >> The goal would be to have the charter approved by the ccNSO and gNSO
> in
> >> Brussels if possible so that we can announce the formation of the
> >> working group. I'm guessing that formally the working group will
> need
> >> to be a joint gNSO ccNSO group (as the 2 relevant supporting
> >> organisations that can actually make policy) with the charter
> mandating
> >> the involvement of the relevant ACs and outside experts.
> >>
> >> In the event that the gNSO council does approve the proposal then
> the
> >> action items will be a) to call for some volunteers to do the
> drafting
> >> along with Bart Boswinkel as ccNSO staff and an equivalent gNSO
> person
> >> and b) to approach the other ACs to inform them that this is
> occurring.
> >>
> >> I understand your council meets on 10 June 2010 and look forward to
> >> hearing from you regarding your discussions.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
> >> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> >> T: 1300 732 929 | F: 03 8341 4112
> >> E: ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx | W:www.auda.org.au
> >>
> >> auDA - The Australian Domain Name Administrator
> >>
> >>
> >> Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
> >> confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for
> the
> >> use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended
> recipient,
> >> you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you
> have
> >> received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete
> >> this
> >> message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing
> >> this email.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> >> signature database 5183 (20100608) __________
> >>
> >> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> >>
> >> http://www.eset.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >