Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Richard Wilhelm (RySG), Eric Rokobauer (RrSG) Alternates: Beth Bacon (RySG), Essie Musailov (RrSG) |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Chat Transcript Transcript (see Zoom recording→chat tab) GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:
Recommendation 6: 2. Staff to redline the language and include it as a sub-bullet in Recommendation 6. WG members to review with other redlines by Wednesday, 30 November. Recommendation 2: 3. WG members to review and comment on Strawman Revision of Recommendation 2 on the Losing FOA [docs.google.com] on the list by Wednesday, 30 November. Recommendation 7: 4. (c) Proposed edit -- WG agrees with the potential next step of changing the language from “should” to “MUST”. Staff to incorporate. WG members should review and comment. Recommendation 8 5. (a) Proposed Edit -- WG agrees with the potential next step strawman revision. Staff to incorporate. 6. (b) Proposed Edit – WG agrees with the potential next step strawman revision. Staff to incorporate. Recommendation 9: 7. (b) Proposed edit -- WG agrees with the suggested language in the Potential next step. Staff to incorporate. Notes:
2. Welcome and Chair Updates Recommendation 6: Potential next step: Strawman revision: "Designated representative" means an individual or entity that the Registered Name Holder explicitly authorizes to request and obtain the TAC on their behalf.” Discussion:
ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 6 -- Staff to redline the language and include it as a sub-bullet in Recommendation 6. WG members to review with other redlines by Wednesday, 30 November. 3. Review of Strawman Revision of Recommendation 2 on the Losing FOA [docs.google.com]
ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 2 -- WG members to review and comment on Strawman Revision of Recommendation 2 on the Losing FOA [docs.google.com] on the list by Wednesday, 30 November. 4. Continue Discussion of TAC Composition – Recommendation 7 (Public Comment Review Tooland Working Document [docs.google.com]) Re: a) Concerns -- Discussion:
Re: b) Proposed edit -- Discussion:
Re: c) Proposed edit – Discussion: Potential next step: Strawman revision from ICANN org comment: “The working group recommends that the minimum requirements for the composition of a TAC MUST be as specified in RFC 9154, including all successor standards, modifications or additions thereto relating to Secure Authorization Information for Transfer. The requirement in section 4.1 of RFC 9154 regarding the minimum bits of entropy (i.e., 128 bits) should be a MUST in the policy until a future RFC approved as “Internet Standards” (as opposed to Informational or Experimental standards) through the applicable IETF processes updates the security recommendation.”
ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 7, (c) Proposed edit -- WG agrees with the potential next step of changing the language from “should” to “MUST”. Staff to incorporate. WG members should review and comment.
Re: d) Proposed edit – Discussion:
5. Discussion of Verification of TAC Composition – Recommendation 8 (Public Comment Review Tooland Working Document [docs.google.com]) Re: a) Proposed edit – Discussion: Potential next step: Strawman revision: “The working group recommends that the Registry verifies at the time that the TAC is stored in the Registry system that the TAC meets the syntax requirements specified in Preliminary Recommendation 7.”
ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 8, (a) Proposed Edit -- WG agrees with the potential next step strawman revision. Staff to incorporate. Re: b) Proposed edit – Discussion: Potential next step: Strawman revision, based on staff understanding of the WG’s intent:
ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 8, (b) Proposed Edit – WG agrees with the potential next step strawman revision. Staff to incorporate. 6. Discussion of TAC Generation, Storage, and Provision – Recommendation 9 (Public Comment Review Tooland Working Document [docs.google.com]) Re: a) Concerns – Discussion: Potential next step: WG to consider the suggestion that Gaining Registrars should log failed requests and share with targets, as well as suggestion about enhanced security measures.
Re: b) Proposed edit – Discussion: Potential next step: Strawman revision: 9.2: When the Registrar of Record sets the TAC at the Registry, the Registry MUST store the TAC securely, at least according to the minimum standard set forth in RFC 9154 (or its successors). ACTION ITEM: Recommendation 9, (b) Proposed edit -- WG agrees with the suggested language in the Potential next step. Staff to incorporate. |