<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
Tabling the motion doesn't seem like a very good idea to me but I am
open to being convinced.
Tim - What are your concerns about Avri's version of the motion?
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 5:07 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois
> service tools
>
>
> Avri,
>
> The requested amendments say *collect and organize* and
> nothing about policy making. In fact, your motion mentions
> tiered access and privacy, which are possible policy
> requirements. We have nothing even close to a policy that
> calls for either one. I am simply suggesting that the Council
> start the collecting and organizing and then turn it over to
> Staff to complete.
>
> How about a compromise and table this until after the
> requested analysis of the studies is complete, or at least
> word it so that Staff is not expected to start this until
> after the studies analysis is complete.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois
> service tools
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 2:53 pm
> To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> While I am comfortable with the addition to the Whereas, I am
> uncomfortable with the changes suggested for the Resolved
> with onbe exception, I support the change of date to Seoul.
>
> The rest of the amendment seems to call for a requirements
> setting exercise which has a fairly strong policy implication
> and a decision component. I think that is needed, but I do
> not think it is the first step and I don't think we will be
> ready for that until after we have the results of any studies
> that might be done.
>
> In writing the motion as I did, I was taking into account the
> many different 'requirements' have been stated or implied by
> the work done to date. Before we can do anything in terms of
> setting formal Policy requirements or determining if the
> current tools have the capabilities we to understand those
> many potential requirements as service system requirements.
>
> So I envision this as a data collection and analysis
> exercise, not as a policy making exercise, though I hope the
> information will feed into the ability to make the policy
> decisions in an informed manner.
>
> Given all of the requirements that have been stated, can
> these be collected and understood on the basis of the
> software/system requirements.
>
> So I accept the friendly amendment of the whereas and on the
> date, but not of the resolution. I will make the changes to
> reflect the friendly amendments I am accepting.
>
> Tim, if you like, and someone seconds, we can vote on your
> amendment before voting on the motion.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 08:38 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > Given the current load I'd to make the following friendly
> amendments
> > to the Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for
> Whois Service
> > Tools:
> >
> > Add the following as a sixth part of the Whereas:
> >
> > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A
> Working Group
> > to encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether
> IRIS would
> > be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email
> address data
> > between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of
> > implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes,
> >
> > Modify the two paragraphs of the Resolved section to read:
> >
> > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of
> > policy requirements for the Whois service policy tools that
> may need
> > to be supported such as tiered services and privacy protection.
> >
> > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO
> Council will
> > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based
> on those
> > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide
> an estimate
> > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical
> requirements for a
> > Whois service tool.
> >
> > I would prefer that the Council be the ones, and are
> actually the best
> > ones, to identify the possible policy needs for a new Whois
> > tool/protocol. But given our current workload I did not include a
> > timeframe, but perhaps we could make it all, including
> Staff work, to
> > be done by Korea, I think Sydney is not reasonable at this
> point. It
> > also relieves the workload on Staff a bit. It also incorporates a
> > related recommendation from the IRTP-A WG so that we don't
> duplicate
> > efforts (we probably include within the possible policy
> requirements we gather).
> >
> > I believe this all makes sense given that I believe the
> restructuring
> > should be our priority right now, and realization that new
> gTLD issues
> > are going to consume a lot of our time.
> >
> > If accepted the amended motion would then read as follows:
> >
> > 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,
> >
> > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A
> Working Group
> > to encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether
> IRIS would
> > be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email
> address data
> > between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of
> > implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes,
> >
> > Resolved,
> >
> > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of
> > policy requirements for the Whois service policy tools that
> may need
> > to be supported such as tiered services and privacy protection.
> >
> > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO
> Council will
> > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based
> on those
> > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide
> an estimate
> > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical
> requirements for a
> > Whois service tool.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|