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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike/Chuck,

The WHOIS issue may very well be a priority in light of new IDN TLDs.
Didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. Just pointing out that we may want
to have a discussion about priorities so we know how to approach our
work and manage our time, and what we would like Staff to focus on. For
example, and this is just an example, anything to do with the new gTLD
process and GNSO improvements have priority, next we have to finish work
we've started but we should be cautious about starting anything else
unless there is a proven urgency within the community. Or something like
that.


Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service
Requirements
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 7:37 pm
To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Good point Tim. Let's abandon the contentious (some might say
'ridiculous')
aspects of the so-called 'GNSO Improvements' that so many of us are
wasting
so much time to address. Then we and Staff would have a lot more time to
focus on important policy development issues like WHOIS.


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:30 PM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements


Where does this fall priority wise within the plethora of issues we and
staff are already dealing with right now? Seems we should be making some
either/or types of decisions at this point in time.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 11:51 am
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.