Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
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.
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.
participants (2)
-
Avri Doria -
Tim Ruiz