[bc-gnso] Response from Liz - FW: Draft RAP Motion - WHOIS Access Recommendation #1

Zahid Jamil zahid at dndrc.com
Wed Aug 24 19:44:46 UTC 2011

Dear All,


Please find below some suggested options to deal with the Resolved clause of
the WHOIS Access Recommendation #1 in the Draft RAP Motion.






Zahid Jamil


Jamil & Jamil


219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025

Fax: +92 21 35655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com


Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged
information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction,
publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part
or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic
means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this
communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is


From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster at icann.org] 
Sent: 25 August 2011 00:39
To: Marika Konings; Zahid Jamil (zahid at dndrc.com)
Subject: FW: Draft RAP Motion - WHOIS Access Recommendation #1


Hi Zahid,


Marika and I have been discussing your comment on the Whois access
recommendation, so I thought I'd send a note directly to you.


None of the pending Whois studies really deal with the issue of access or
availability of Whois.  So if you would like to see the issue get addressed
on a faster track than waiting for some future potential debate on Whois
following completion of the studies (clearly not optimal...J), I can think
of 3 possible avenues to raise it sooner:


1.       There is reference to "access" in the technical inventory of Whois
survey requirements that staff prepared in 2010, see:
9jul10-en.pdf.  The report notes that this could be improved (and made
auditable) in the future. The exact text says: Define a framework and
baseline set of metrics that can accommodate future policy development for
auditing of WHOIS access.  Recently the GNSO formed a WG to survey the
community about this report (you may recall Chuck Gomes and Avri Doria
suggesting this several meetings ago).  At minimum we could make sure there
is a question on this in the survey, as a way of determining community
interest in this potential requirement.  The survey development work is
underway, Michael Young is the Chair of the WG, and I am staffing it.


2.       The Proposed amendments to the RAA that were included in the RAA
Amendments Final Report - includes as a "Medium Priority"  -- Service Level
Agreement on Whois availability (Matrix item 6.7), see: p. 22 of
t10-en.pdf .  You could work with other CSG and NCSG members to develop a
strategy for continuing GNSO work on those proposed amendments.


3.       You could take some first steps, leading potentially to initiate a
PDP on this specific issue.  For example -- You could suggest laying a
foundation by suggesting a workshop in Costa Rica on the topic of access and
availability, with speakers from Compliance (what are our current
requirements) and from users who have concerns, etc.  Staff could help you
get space and pull together panelists, etc..  IT's good to begin to build a
public record of the problem, with documentation if possible, before
suggesting an Issue Report.  Following a workshop or maybe a statement of
concern that you circulate among potentially interested stakeholders, your
constituency could move to request an Issue Report.


We can talk more about these options but if it is a big issue of concern to
you I do not think it would make sense to wait for the studies.  And I
strongly suggest some community "fact finding/workshop" before requesting an
Issue Report.  Of course you can take options 2 or 3 at any time separate
from Registration Abuse recommendation.  But the fact that the
recommendation was made also helps leverage pursuing either 2 or 3 above.


Make sense?  Hope this helps.  Best, Liz




From: Marika Konings 
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:08 AM
To: Liz Gasster
Subject: Re: Draft RAP Motion - WHOIS Access Recommendation #1



Zahid's comment is: 'I wonder if there is some more formal exchange to
direct which ever groups responsible for the studies to consider the RAPWG
final report on this recommendation and said group specifically advise the
GNSO as to whether the recommendations should be implemented or dropped. I
guess I'm looking for more of a warm hand-off instead of remain idle for
studies to be completed 6+ months down the road'. 


My response to Zahid was that at this stage there is no group responsible
for the studies to whom the recommendation could be directed, but that I
would check with you to confirm or whether you would have any other
suggestions on how to make sure this recommendation is not forgotten by the
time the Council starts looking at the studies. I mentioned that it would be
kept in the project list under outstanding recommendations, so that it
hopefully wouldn't get lost or forgotten.


Best regards,




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 13246 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110825/2f353d2e/winmail.dat>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list