RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri. Still a little confused by what you mean by strawman
proposal, particularly the proposal part. Is that asking for a proposed
solution that meets the collected requirements?

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service
tools
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 11:05 pm
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Hi,

In making the amendments to the motion, I have changed the
recommendation to drop specific examples like tiered access - though the
proposal has been made in the past and discussed at length - it would be
good to have some analysis of what it means to change the system to
support this.

Also I forgot that I had already agreed to a friendly amendment from the
staff allowing more flexibility in delivery dates (this was in the
motion on the wiki, but still in parenthesis).

the Resolution now reads:

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 that have been suggested in the past.

The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the
SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should
be prepared. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when
this would be possible.



On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:06 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote: 
> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
>