RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools
Thanks Avri. Still a little confused by what you mean by strawman proposal, particularly the proposal part. Is that asking for a proposed solution that meets the collected requirements? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Friendly amendments to motion on Whois service tools From: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 11:05 pm To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, In making the amendments to the motion, I have changed the recommendation to drop specific examples like tiered access - though the proposal has been made in the past and discussed at length - it would be good to have some analysis of what it means to change the system to support this. Also I forgot that I had already agreed to a friendly amendment from the staff allowing more flexibility in delivery dates (this was in the motion on the wiki, but still in parenthesis). the Resolution now reads: Resolved, The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past. The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when this would be possible. On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:06 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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@psg.com> Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 2:53 pm To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
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.
Hi, On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:04 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Thanks Avri. Still a little confused by what you mean by strawman proposal, particularly the proposal part. Is that asking for a proposed solution that meets the collected requirements?
A few words were missing from the copy on the email, that are included in the motion on the wiki. | The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the | SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal | should be prepared for these consultation. The Staff is asked to come | back with an estimate of when this would be possible. This was wording, recommended by the staff just so that the work load would be deferred as necessary. The process they have offered to take is that they will do some initial work on understanding the system requirements and produce a proposal that not only checks the direction they are going in, but which can be used as the basis for the consultations with the appropriate ACSOs. And instead of imposing a date, we are putting the work on the stack, but asking for staff to indicate when they will be able to do it. In a scheduling exercise I would have identified this as having an end/end dependency with getting results from studies, i.e. they should be finished around the same time so that when the council next discusses Whois Policy (which has to happen again someday), they have as much fact based data as possible.
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.
I think that concern was widespread. There was also a contravening concern of needing to understand the work that would be involved in meeting some of the possible task that need to be done, especially IDN support. As in most engineering jobs, one of the components of the understanding should come from understanding the possible changes to the service system at a layer, or more, below the policy layer. The understanding of what it would take, if some of the policy decisions are made, added to the information that will hopefully be ferreted out by studies, could help in making fact based decisions on future whois policy discussions. I agree with you about the need to prioritize, and I suggest that once the bi-cameral council is seated, it be one of the first things it does. I suggest that finding out what it will take to update the whois service for IDN, among other possible needs, is part of the important set of things to get started as any system changes will take a while to execute. Thanks for your comments and questions. a.
participants (2)
-
Avri Doria -
Tim Ruiz