Re: [dow3tf] TR: Task Force 3 ? Revised List of Companies to Survey
- To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [dow3tf] TR: Task Force 3 ? Revised List of Companies to Survey
- From: sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:38:34 -0500
- Cc: "Brian Darville" <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>, dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I suggested Verisign because they (apart from the domain name business)
have a well known line of business dedicated to helping companies with data
authentication and preventing online fraud. This would not necessarily
mean that Verisign needs to get the survey questions. It would simply be
helpful to talk to them separately about how they help companies in this
area. See my link to the Verisign service from the prior email.
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
"Ross Wm. Rader"
<ross@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Brian Darville" <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
owner-dow3tf@gnso Subject: Re: [dow3tf] TR: Task Force 3 ? Revised List of Companies to Survey
Please respond to
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