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

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

Point well taken Tim.  Maybe we should start by asking Staff whether
they have the bandwidth to take this on at this time and if not request
an estimate as to when they think they would be able to do so.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:29 PM
> To: 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service 
> Requirements
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>