ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

AW: [council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation

Oh sorry, Mason and all, re "trust" and "control" this was a German idiom and 
may be misleading with my translation. It is just related to the process 
itself, nothing more. Forget this, please.
Let's clarify this process at the weekend sessions in Prague.

Best regards and smooth flihts

Von: Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:34
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation

I have to agree with Jeff here.  It seems much of this, Wolf, is already dealt 
with operationally, in negotiation or in existing PDPs.  With all due respect, 
it seems like you motion says "Yes, Whois is within the picket fence, and 
though I can open a PDP on an inside-the-fence issue any time, I move to ensure 
that if an RAA PDP is opened, Whois is included."  I confess I don't follow the 
procedural logic.  Why not see what an RAA PDP might hold and if it's not to 
your liking, propose an amendment?  If not that, move to open a PDP for an 
issue within the fence.

Above that issue, though, is Jeff's correct observation that it's premature to 
do this until we see the results of negotiation.  And that there may not be a 
lot to negotiate given the belt-and-suspenders already in place with SLAs, etc.

Also, can you please clarify what you mean with the terms "trust" and "control"?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed 6/20/2012 3:53 AM
To: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation

Trust, but control is better...

>From the RAA negotiation issues posted on the web I can only see that the 
>important WHOIS issue is still controversial, and there may be no agreement on 
>this. In this case the access issue should be incorporated in a PDP if 
>requested. Since we're not part of the negotiation team we can't influence the 
>debate otherwise.

Best regards

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 12:53
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Betreff: RE: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation

Ok, but why are we so concerned with a registrar SLA if they are required to 
pass through the accurate data to the registries and the registries have an 
uptime slas.  If it just com and net that are the issue because not thick 
registries, well that is being dealt with in the thick Whois pdp already 
initiated which will start later this year.

In short, between all of the work underway (the protocol work, the 
negotiations, the thick Whois pdp, the Whois require,ends survey, the Pdp 
intimated by the board dealing with picket fence issues in the RAA, the Whois 
studies, etc.), I think everything is covered.

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Tuesday, June 19, 2012 05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Neuman, Jeff; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:        AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation

Thanks Jeff, very helpful!
These are the documents we're also referring to.

However the focus of SAC 051 and the Roadmap seems primarily protocol-related. 
Originally you may recall that the Council asked the WHOIS Service Requirements 
Survey Working Group to consider adding this "feature" as a possible technical 
"requirement" to be surveyed to determine the degree of community support for 
that capability as part of a new protocol. The WSWG concluded that WHOIS uptime 
or "basic availability of and access to WHOIS data" such as an SLA-type 
approach was not a technical protocol-level issue but rather an operational or 
policy issue that was not within the WSWG's remit and no specific requirement 
of uptime is required today. (Recall this email from Compliance reporting on 
this:   http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html 
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html> ).

Thus we do not think that there is much potential overlap with SAC 051 or the 
Roadmap which is also focusing at the protocol level, except possibly insofar 
as  PDP might result at some point during the Roadmap process.

Our access motion is intended to basically assure what you are describing in #3 
and #4 below, which is to follow up to include the access capability in an RAA 
PDP in the event that an SLA doesn't result from the RAA negotiations. This is 
why the motion is focusing on incorporating this access into a possible PDP if 
not addressed in negotiations and why we do not necessarily see a connection 
with the SAC 051 Roadmap.

Best regards


        Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
        Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Juni 2012 21:25
        An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation


        This is key, but also please review:

        1.        SAC 51:  

        2.        And the final roadmap to implement SAC 51:  
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm which 
is currently published and before the board.

        I do disagree with some things in the road map like the legalistic 
approach to standards development which is a larger issue of how ICANN sees its 
own self regulatory model, but nonetheless, they need to be reviewed.

        3.       Also, don't forget the current discussions with the registrars 
on the RAA amendments:  
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-04jun12-en.htm which 
have several sections dealing with WHOIS Access.

        4.       And finally keep in mind that certain picket fence items not 
finalized in the RAA discussions, can be addressed in the PDP we approved 
(which I believe the motion is meant to address).

        The main point is that the motion came out of a group whose 
recommendations are 3 years old and do not take into consideration all of the 
work that is already underway.

        Given all the work already underway, what is it that the motion adds 
that is not being done?


        Jeffrey J. Neuman
        Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:42 AM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [council] Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation


        with regards to the a.m. motion which has been deferred to the Prague 
meeting I'd like to come back to the "definition of WHOIS Access" which was 
discussed at the last call.

        In this context two defining documents should be given attention: the 
RAP WG Final Report and the WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report.

        The RAP WG is pointing to "basic availability of and access to WHOIS 
data" which implies technical, operational and contractual aspects (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf; page 71 ff)

        In this context it may be helpful to make reference to the definitions 
in the WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report on WHOIS Data, WHOIS Protocol and 
WHOIS Service (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en; page 22 

        I would appreciate if continuing this discussion on the list could lead 
to a more common understanding of the item until it comes to voting.

        Best regards


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