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@gnso.icann.org on behalf of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wed 6/20/2012 3:53 AM To: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; council@gnso.icann.org 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@neustar.us] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 12:53 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; 'council@gnso.icann.org' 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@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Neuman, Jeff; council@gnso.icann.org 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@neustar.us] Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Juni 2012 21:25 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:42 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@seltzer.org +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/