RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Looks like a good motion to me Avri.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:51 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> An action item I took away from the last meeting was to frame 
> a request to the staff to collect the various requirements 
> for a new Whois service tool or set of tools.  In thinking 
> about it, I decide that perhaps this should be a a formal 
> request and should be done in the form of a motion.
> 
> I have included a first draft of such a motion below.  Please 
> send comments.  I plan to add it to the agenda for our next meeting.
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the 
> adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the 
> necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois 
> service policy requirements, 
> 
> and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these 
> tools for use in an IDN environment,
> 
> and, that there have been extensive discussions about the 
> requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry 
> and registrar operations, 
> 
> and, new architectures and tools have been developed and 
> suggested by the technical community,
> 
> resolved, 
> 
> The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the 
> assistance of technical staff as required, collect and 
> organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois 
> service policy tools.  These requirements should reflect not 
> only the known deficiencies in the current service but should 
> include any possible requirements that may be needed to 
> support various policy initiatives such as tiered services and privacy
> protection.   
> 
> The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation 
> with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and should be ready 
> for community discussion in time for the Sydney meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>