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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,


On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:04 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> 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?


A few words were missing from the copy on the email, that are included
in the motion on the wiki.

| 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 for these consultation. The Staff is asked to come
| back with an estimate of when this would be possible.

This was wording, recommended by the staff just so that the work load
would be deferred as necessary.  The process they have offered to take
is that they will do some initial work on understanding the system
requirements and produce a proposal that not only checks the direction
they are going in, but which can be used as the basis for the
consultations with the appropriate ACSOs.  

And instead of imposing a date, we are putting the work on the stack,
but asking for staff to indicate when they will be able to do it.  In a
scheduling exercise I would have identified this as having an end/end
dependency with getting results from studies, i.e. they should be
finished around the same time so that when the council next discusses
Whois Policy (which has to happen again someday), they have as much fact
based data as possible.


> 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.
> 

I think that concern was widespread.  There was also a contravening
concern of needing to understand the work that would be involved in
meeting some of the possible task that need to be done, especially IDN
support.  As in most engineering jobs, one of the components of the
understanding should come from understanding the possible changes to the
service system at a layer, or more, below the policy layer.

The understanding of what it would take, if some of the policy decisions
are made, added to the information that will hopefully be ferreted out
by studies, could help in making fact based decisions on future whois
policy discussions.

I agree with you about the need to prioritize, and I suggest that once
the bi-cameral council is seated, it be one of the first things it does.
I suggest that finding out what it will take to update the whois service
for IDN, among other possible needs, is part of the important set of
things to get started as any system changes will take a while to
execute. 

Thanks for your comments and questions.

a.