<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
- To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] FW: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:11:50 -0400
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acr/uxvCsUmdFi+QT1eMqVxQpN58mgC8mrLpAESWi4ABbK8GwADAT5zwBesGbQAAA/w+sA==
- Thread-topic: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
In response to Wolf’s request at the end of today’s Council meeting, I sent the
following message. I will keep the Council informed regarding any response I
receive.
Chuck
From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:20 AM
To: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Rod Beckstrom; Donna Austin; Olof Nordling; Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-discussion] FW: Communication with ACSO on the next RTs
Rod/Heather,
I believe that the following listed compositions of the SSR and Whois RTs were
the last to be communicated. But I don’t think I ever saw a final decision in
this regard. It would be helpful for GNSO stakeholder groups to know what the
final compositions will be as they do their work in the next few weeks
regarding GNSO endorsements. Any information you can provide in that regard
would be appreciated.
Chuck Gomes
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|