ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[ga] TAS Interuption update ( Security breach )

  • To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dr. Alain Pellet" <courriel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, icann-board@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ga] TAS Interuption update ( Security breach )
  • From: Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 22:18:28 -0700


See COO letter from ICANN:

Seems that the letter is dumbing down a security breach that
could/should have been avoided.


1.) How do those few applicants whose applications were breached to be
properly compensated,
or will they be compensated at all?  If not why not?

2.) What specific corrective measures were or will be taken to prevent
this or any other sort
      of security breach in the TAS system presently or in the future?

3.) Whom specifically has taken the responsibility for the security breech?

4.) What exactly was the cause(s) of this security breech?

5.) Is it possible or likely that any of the compromised parties
applications will be
     undermined as a result of this 'Interruption' and/or breech?  If
not, why not?
     If so, how and what actions or corrections to those parties to be effected?

Respectful regards and god bless,

Jeffrey A. Williams
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
Updated 4/18/12
Phone: 214-245-2647

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