[council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs

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

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@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: piektdiena, 2010. gada 11. jūnijā 17:00
To: Janis Karklins; soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
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@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