RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
Mike/Chuck, The WHOIS issue may very well be a priority in light of new IDN TLDs. Didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. Just pointing out that we may want to have a discussion about priorities so we know how to approach our work and manage our time, and what we would like Staff to focus on. For example, and this is just an example, anything to do with the new gTLD process and GNSO improvements have priority, next we have to finish work we've started but we should be cautious about starting anything else unless there is a proven urgency within the community. Or something like that. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 7:37 pm To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Good point Tim. Let's abandon the contentious (some might say 'ridiculous') aspects of the so-called 'GNSO Improvements' that so many of us are wasting so much time to address. Then we and Staff would have a lot more time to focus on important policy development issues like WHOIS. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:30 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements Where does this fall priority wise within the plethora of issues we and staff are already dealing with right now? Seems we should be making some either/or types of decisions at this point in time. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 11:51 am To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, An action item I took away from the last meeting was to frame a request to the staff to collect the various requirements for a new Whois service tool or set of tools. In thinking about it, I decide that perhaps this should be a a formal request and should be done in the form of a motion. I have included a first draft of such a motion below. Please send comments. I plan to add it to the agenda for our next meeting. thanks a. 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, 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 such as tiered services and privacy protection. The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and should be ready for community discussion in time for the Sydney meeting.
Point well taken Tim. Maybe we should start by asking Staff whether they have the bandwidth to take this on at this time and if not request an estimate as to when they think they would be able to do so. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:29 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
Mike/Chuck,
The WHOIS issue may very well be a priority in light of new IDN TLDs. Didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. Just pointing out that we may want to have a discussion about priorities so we know how to approach our work and manage our time, and what we would like Staff to focus on. For example, and this is just an example, anything to do with the new gTLD process and GNSO improvements have priority, next we have to finish work we've started but we should be cautious about starting anything else unless there is a proven urgency within the community. Or something like that.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 7:37 pm To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Good point Tim. Let's abandon the contentious (some might say 'ridiculous') aspects of the so-called 'GNSO Improvements' that so many of us are wasting so much time to address. Then we and Staff would have a lot more time to focus on important policy development issues like WHOIS.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:30 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
Where does this fall priority wise within the plethora of issues we and staff are already dealing with right now? Seems we should be making some either/or types of decisions at this point in time.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 11:51 am To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hi,
An action item I took away from the last meeting was to frame a request to the staff to collect the various requirements for a new Whois service tool or set of tools. In thinking about it, I decide that perhaps this should be a a formal request and should be done in the form of a motion.
I have included a first draft of such a motion below. Please send comments. I plan to add it to the agenda for our next meeting.
thanks
a.
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,
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 such as tiered services and privacy protection.
The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and should be ready for community discussion in time for the Sydney meeting.
Chuck wrote: "Maybe we should start by asking Staff whether they have the bandwidth to take this on at this time and if not request an estimate as to when they think they would be able to do so". --------------------- Chuck, this seems a little backwards and implies every current issue occupying staff time has greater priority than future ideas such as this. A better way to proceed is for Council to make as many requests of staff as we deem necessary. Staff management then respond and indicate resource constraints. They list the activities they are doing and request Council to prioritise the list. We prioritise. Staff act. Philip
I'm in a kind of half-way house about all this. On the one hand, I fully support Tim's comments that prioritising our work may lead to us actually getting things done. On the other, I do feel that it's our responsibility as GNSO Council to try and tackle all the important issues that lie before us, not just some of them. There's been a great deal of talk about volunteer burn-out since Mexico, and the fact that we find ourselves at the limit of what we can handle should be of great worry to the ICANN community as a whole. That's certainly an issue there that needs to be addressed. However, I do think Avri's motion on WHOIS is worthwhile having, just as I consider new gTLD work and GNSO improvement work crucial. Having staff alert us when they can no longer cope may be one way of dealing with the sheer volume of issues to be tackled by the GNSO Council. It implies that we rely on staff more and more to simplify our lives for us, which is no bad thing... Unless staff finds itself unable to cope with that (but they haven't sent us that signal so far I don't think). But I agree that the order in which we should do things is for us to initiate work on an issue, and then for staff to give us the timeframe in which they can reasonably be expected to handle that issue and the work we put their way on that issue. Checking with staff before we embark on something seems like taking something away from our role as the people responsible for setting things in motion as far as the issues the GNSO handles is concerned. Stéphane Le 08/04/09 09:23, « Philip Sheppard » <philip.sheppard@aim.be> a écrit :
Chuck wrote: "Maybe we should start by asking Staff whether they have the bandwidth to take this on at this time and if not request an estimate as to when they think they would be able to do so".
--------------------- Chuck, this seems a little backwards and implies every current issue occupying staff time has greater priority than future ideas such as this. A better way to proceed is for Council to make as many requests of staff as we deem necessary. Staff management then respond and indicate resource constraints. They list the activities they are doing and request Council to prioritise the list. We prioritise. Staff act.
Philip
Philip, Your suggested approach would seem to accomplish what I intended. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:24 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Action Item related to Whois Service Requirements
Chuck wrote: "Maybe we should start by asking Staff whether they have the bandwidth to take this on at this time and if not request an estimate as to when they think they would be able to do so".
--------------------- Chuck, this seems a little backwards and implies every current issue occupying staff time has greater priority than future ideas such as this. A better way to proceed is for Council to make as many requests of staff as we deem necessary. Staff management then respond and indicate resource constraints. They list the activities they are doing and request Council to prioritise the list. We prioritise. Staff act.
Philip
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz