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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Concerned about Staff resources. They are there to support us, but we
should try to recognize there are limitations, designate priorities,
etc. But in general, I would prefer we do the requirements collection
ourselves (of course, we have our own resource issues). That said, I'm
not going to the mat over it.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service
tools
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 7:15 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council "
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
>