<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation
Thanks Jeff, very helpful!
These are the documents we're also referring to.
However the focus of SAC 051 and the Roadmap seems primarily protocol-related.
Originally you may recall that the Council asked the WHOIS Service Requirements
Survey Working Group to consider adding this "feature" as a possible technical
"requirement" to be surveyed to determine the degree of community support for
that capability as part of a new protocol. The WSWG concluded that WHOIS uptime
or "basic availability of and access to WHOIS data" such as an SLA-type
approach was not a technical protocol-level issue but rather an operational or
policy issue that was not within the WSWG's remit and no specific requirement
of uptime is required today. (Recall this email from Compliance reporting on
this: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).
Thus we do not think that there is much potential overlap with SAC 051 or the
Roadmap which is also focusing at the protocol level, except possibly insofar
as PDP might result at some point during the Roadmap process.
Our access motion is intended to basically assure what you are describing in #3
and #4 below, which is to follow up to include the access capability in an RAA
PDP in the event that an SLA doesn't result from the RAA negotiations. This is
why the motion is focusing on incorporating this access into a possible PDP if
not addressed in negotiations and why we do not necessarily see a connection
with the SAC 051 Roadmap.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Juni 2012 21:25
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation
Wolf,
This is key, but also please review:
1. SAC 51: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf
2. And the final roadmap to implement SAC 51:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm which
is currently published and before the board.
I do disagree with some things in the road map like the legalistic approach to
standards development which is a larger issue of how ICANN sees its own self
regulatory model, but nonetheless, they need to be reviewed.
3. Also, don't forget the current discussions with the registrars on the
RAA amendments:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-04jun12-en.htm which
have several sections dealing with WHOIS Access.
4. And finally keep in mind that certain picket fence items not finalized
in the RAA discussions, can be addressed in the PDP we approved (which I
believe the motion is meant to address).
The main point is that the motion came out of a group whose recommendations are
3 years old and do not take into consideration all of the work that is already
underway.
Given all the work already underway, what is it that the motion adds that is
not being done?
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:42 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation
All:
with regards to the a.m. motion which has been deferred to the Prague meeting
I'd like to come back to the "definition of WHOIS Access" which was discussed
at the last call.
In this context two defining documents should be given attention: the RAP WG
Final Report and the WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report.
The RAP WG is pointing to "basic availability of and access to WHOIS data"
which implies technical, operational and contractual aspects (see
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf; page 71 ff)
In this context it may be helpful to make reference to the definitions in the
WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report on WHOIS Data, WHOIS Protocol and WHOIS
Service (see
http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en; page 22
ff)
I would appreciate if continuing this discussion on the list could lead to a
more common understanding of the item until it comes to voting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|