<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation
I agree with Mason and Jeff, and would recommend that we table this motion.
--Wendy
On 06/21/2012 12:34 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
> I have to agree with Jeff here. It seems much of this, Wolf, is already
> dealt with operationally, in negotiation or in existing PDPs. With all due
> respect, it seems like you motion says "Yes, Whois is within the picket
> fence, and though I can open a PDP on an inside-the-fence issue any time, I
> move to ensure that if an RAA PDP is opened, Whois is included." I confess I
> don't follow the procedural logic. Why not see what an RAA PDP might hold
> and if it's not to your liking, propose an amendment? If not that, move to
> open a PDP for an issue within the fence.
>
> Above that issue, though, is Jeff's correct observation that it's premature
> to do this until we see the results of negotiation. And that there may not
> be a lot to negotiate given the belt-and-suspenders already in place with
> SLAs, etc.
>
> Also, can you please clarify what you mean with the terms "trust" and
> "control"?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed 6/20/2012 3:53 AM
> To: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation
>
>
>
> Trust, but control is better...
>
> From the RAA negotiation issues posted on the web I can only see that the
> important WHOIS issue is still controversial, and there may be no agreement
> on this. In this case the access issue should be incorporated in a PDP if
> requested. Since we're not part of the negotiation team we can't influence
> the debate otherwise.
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 12:53
> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Betreff: RE: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation
>
> Ok, but why are we so concerned with a registrar SLA if they are required to
> pass through the accurate data to the registries and the registries have an
> uptime slas. If it just com and net that are the issue because not thick
> registries, well that is being dealt with in the thick Whois pdp already
> initiated which will start later this year.
>
> In short, between all of the work underway (the protocol work, the
> negotiations, the thick Whois pdp, the Whois require,ends survey, the Pdp
> intimated by the board dealing with picket fence issues in the RAA, the Whois
> studies, etc.), I think everything is covered.
>
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Neuman, Jeff; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|