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

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@xxxxxxxxx>]

I will be unable to join tonight's call as I am currently overnighting
away from the office
after a GAC meeting in Sark.

My apologies for the absence.


Nigel

Steve Metalitz wrote:
> 
> 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