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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Got it. Thanks.


Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service
> tools
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, May 06, 2009 9:00 am
> To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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.