RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
Chuck,
Concerned about Staff resources. They are there to support us, but we
should try to recognize there are limitations, designate priorities,
etc. But in general, I would prefer we do the requirements collection
ourselves (of course, we have our own resource issues). That said, I'm
not going to the mat over it.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service
tools
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 7:15 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council "
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tabling the motion doesn't seem like a very good idea to me but I am
open to being convinced.
Tim - What are your concerns about Avri's version of the motion?
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 5:07 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois
> service tools
>
>
> Avri,
>
> The requested amendments say *collect and organize* and
> nothing about policy making. In fact, your motion mentions
> tiered access and privacy, which are possible policy
> requirements. We have nothing even close to a policy that
> calls for either one. I am simply suggesting that the Council
> start the collecting and organizing and then turn it over to
> Staff to complete.
>
> How about a compromise and table this until after the
> requested analysis of the studies is complete, or at least
> word it so that Staff is not expected to start this until
> after the studies analysis is complete.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois
> service tools
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 2:53 pm
> To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> While I am comfortable with the addition to the Whereas, I am
> uncomfortable with the changes suggested for the Resolved
> with onbe exception, I support the change of date to Seoul.
>
> The rest of the amendment seems to call for a requirements
> setting exercise which has a fairly strong policy implication
> and a decision component. I think that is needed, but I do
> not think it is the first step and I don't think we will be
> ready for that until after we have the results of any studies
> that might be done.
>
> In writing the motion as I did, I was taking into account the
> many different 'requirements' have been stated or implied by
> the work done to date. Before we can do anything in terms of
> setting formal Policy requirements or determining if the
> current tools have the capabilities we to understand those
> many potential requirements as service system requirements.
>
> So I envision this as a data collection and analysis
> exercise, not as a policy making exercise, though I hope the
> information will feed into the ability to make the policy
> decisions in an informed manner.
>
> Given all of the requirements that have been stated, can
> these be collected and understood on the basis of the
> software/system requirements.
>
> So I accept the friendly amendment of the whereas and on the
> date, but not of the resolution. I will make the changes to
> reflect the friendly amendments I am accepting.
>
> Tim, if you like, and someone seconds, we can vote on your
> amendment before voting on the motion.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 08:38 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > Given the current load I'd to make the following friendly
> amendments
> > to the Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for
> Whois Service
> > Tools:
> >
> > Add the following as a sixth part of the Whereas:
> >
> > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A
> Working Group
> > to encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether
> IRIS would
> > be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email
> address data
> > between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of
> > implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes,
> >
> > Modify the two paragraphs of the Resolved section to read:
> >
> > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of
> > policy requirements for the Whois service policy tools that
> may need
> > to be supported such as tiered services and privacy protection.
> >
> > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO
> Council will
> > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based
> on those
> > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide
> an estimate
> > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical
> requirements for a
> > Whois service tool.
> >
> > I would prefer that the Council be the ones, and are
> actually the best
> > ones, to identify the possible policy needs for a new Whois
> > tool/protocol. But given our current workload I did not include a
> > timeframe, but perhaps we could make it all, including
> Staff work, to
> > be done by Korea, I think Sydney is not reasonable at this
> point. It
> > also relieves the workload on Staff a bit. It also incorporates a
> > related recommendation from the IRTP-A WG so that we don't
> duplicate
> > efforts (we probably include within the possible policy
> requirements we gather).
> >
> > I believe this all makes sense given that I believe the
> restructuring
> > should be our priority right now, and realization that new
> gTLD issues
> > are going to consume a lot of our time.
> >
> > If accepted the amended motion would then read as follows:
> >
> > Whereas there have been discussions for several years on
> the adequacy
> > of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary
> functions
> > to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,
> >
> > and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these
> tools for
> > use in an IDN environment,
> >
> > and, that there have been extensive discussions about the
> requirements
> > of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar
> > operations,
> >
> > and, new architectures and tools have been developed and
> suggested by
> > the technical community,
> >
> > and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A
> Working Group
> > to encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether
> IRIS would
> > be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email
> address data
> > between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of
> > implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes,
> >
> > Resolved,
> >
> > The GNSO Council will collect and organize a comprehensive set of
> > policy requirements for the Whois service policy tools that
> may need
> > to be supported such as tiered services and privacy protection.
> >
> > Following the collection of policy requirements, the GNSO
> Council will
> > present those requirements to Staff and requests that based
> on those
> > requirements Staff, in consultation with the SSAC, provide
> an estimate
> > for delivery of a synthesis of necessary technical
> requirements for a
> > Whois service tool.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>