ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [dow3tf] TR: Task Force 3 =?windows-874?q?=97_Revised_Li?==?windows-874?q?st_of_Companies_to_Survey_?=

  • To: Brian Darville <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] TR: Task Force 3 =?windows-874?q?=97_Revised_Li?==?windows-874?q?st_of_Companies_to_Survey_?=
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:18:04 -0500
  • Cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <s00561b3.002@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s00561b3.002@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (20031223)

On 1/14/2004 3:34 PM Brian Darville noted that:

My understanding was that we would obtain a response to the survey questions from the IETF. I think it makes sense to submit the same questions to all of those surveyed and have them respond.

I think we might be saying the same thing - when I said "feedback" I meant "feedback" in the "respond to the survey questions" sense. Regardless, the questions will need to be modified slightly in that the ENUM working group does not collect data per se, but they are in the process of designing a series of specifications that, when implemented, will require others to do so. Rich is qualified to answer the questions on this basis. We should also request input from him regarding the status of the various drafts to ensure that we are evaluating only those drafts that have received some level of peer review and iteration. As I mentioned, anyone can publish an IETF draft and doing so does not necessarily mean that the proposal is well considered or useful. This approach will ensure that Terry's research is focused and effective.

On another issue, the reason to include Verisign in the survey was to determine from the part of the company, which offers products and services in which customers require verification, what information it gathers and what methodologies it employs in verifing the accuracy of that data. I don't think it makes sense to survey that part of Verisign that operates the .com and.net registries -- that registry collects no personally identifiable information on any domian name registrant -- but rather the rest oftheir company, much of which offers products and services to customers which requires verification.

Then I would reiterate my objection to their inclusion. Verisign is an exceptional creature in the context of the GNSO (as the monopoly provider of .com and .net and former sole source for all gTLDS) and rather unremarkable in all other markets that they play in. If this is the goal, then I propose that we solicit a response from Geotrust (www.geotrust.com) in that they play in two of the same significant markets that Verisign does (PKI and payment processing) without being a player in the gTLD market.

(obDisclaimer: Tucows purchases PKI products from Geotrust).



"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>