ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>