RE: [whois-sc] other items for tomorrow's call

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good idea - I will do that.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2003 8:40 AM
> To: 'whois-sc@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [whois-sc] other items for tomorrow's call
> 
> 
> May I suggest that we spend part of tomorrow's call of the 
> Steering Group in clarifying how (if at all) our work 
> intersects with the following initiatives announced by Paul 
> Twomey in his missive of September 18
> (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18sep03.htm):  
> 
> 1) CRISP Review. The Internet Engineering Task Force's (IETF
> <http://www.ietf.org>'s) Cross-Registry Information Service 
> Protocol (CRISP) Working Group 
> <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/crisp-charter.html> will 
> define a standard mechanism that can be used to support 
> commonly required queries for domain registration 
> information. Participation is encouraged. The CRISP protocol 
> may, at a future date, be adopted and affect the services 
> currently implemented in WHOIS. The CRISP Working Group is in 
> the process of refining requirements (identifying the 
> community of users, deciding on scope, identifying needs, and 
> determining features), and has called for comments on the 
> functional requirements statement 
> <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-
crisp-requirem
ents-06.txt> contained in the IETF's draft request for comments (RFC) on
the CRISP protocol. The GNSO Council <http://gnso.icann.org>, under the
direction of Bruce Tonkin (GNSO Council Chair), will be launching such a
review and is encouraging its constituencies and liaisons to
participate.
2) WHOIS Data Element Review. With ICANN staff support, an analysis will
be conducted on the existing uses of the registrant data elements
currently captured as part of the domain name registration process. The
intent is to determine whether all of the data elements now collected
are necessary for current and foreseeable needs of the community, and if
so, how they may be acquired with the greatest accuracy, least cost, and
in compliance with applicable privacy, security, and stability
considerations.
3) Domain Name Registrant Classification. At the Montreal workshop,
there was discussion about whether it was feasible to distinguish
different classes of domain name holders such that the WHOIS information
collected from them, and made available to the community, could reflect
differing types of use and potentially different privacy considerations.
The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC
<http://www.gac-icann.org/web/index.shtml>) WHOIS Working Group, chaired
by Robin Layton (GAC's US Accredited Representative), is investigating
this possibility. ....

[4] (numbering added) To help advance these efforts and encourage
coordination and collaboration, two activities are planned for ICANN's
Carthage meeting </carthage/> in late October. ICANN will sponsor a
second WHOIS workshop </carthage/whois-workshop-agenda.htm> focusing on
identifying the priority WHOIS issues to be addressed by ICANN and
discussing applicable "best practices." [I note by the way that an
agenda for this workshop has been posted today.
http://www.icann.org/carthage/whois-workshop-agenda.htm]
In the interests of efficiency and avoiding duplication of effort, it
would be valuable to have greater clarity on whether these announcements
render anything we have talked about redundant, and/or whether this
announcement creates new deadlines or expectations for the pace or
priority of our work.

Steve Metalitz