<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19222"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555255920-21062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Oh sorry, Mason and all, re "trust" and "control" this was a
German idiom and may be misleading with my translation. It is just related to
the process itself, nothing more. Forget this, please.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=555255920-21062012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Let's
clarify this process at the weekend sessions in Prague.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format --><BR>
<P><SPAN lang=de><FONT size=2 face="Courier New">Best
regards</FONT></SPAN> <SPAN class=555255920-21062012><FONT size=2
face="Courier New">and smooth flihts</FONT></SPAN><BR><SPAN lang=de><FONT size=2
face="Courier New">Wolf-Ulrich</FONT></SPAN> </P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=de class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>Von:</B> Mason Cole [mailto:mcole@nameking.com]
<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:34<BR><B>An:</B> Knoben,
Wolf-Ulrich; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; council@gnso.icann.org<BR><B>Betreff:</B>
RE: [council] AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Also, can you please clarify what you mean
with the terms "trust" and "control"?<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of
KnobenW@telekom.de<BR>Sent: Wed 6/20/2012 3:53 AM<BR>To:
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; council@gnso.icann.org<BR>Subject: [council] AW:
Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation<BR><BR><BR><BR>Trust, but control is
better...<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Best
regards<BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<BR>Von:
Neuman, Jeff [<A
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us">mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</A>]<BR>Gesendet:
Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 12:53<BR>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
'council@gnso.icann.org'<BR>Betreff: RE: Motion on WHOIS Access
recommendation<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><BR>Sent with Good
(www.good.com)<BR><BR><BR> -----Original
Message-----<BR>From: KnobenW@telekom.de [<A
href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de</A>]<BR>Sent:
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 05:59 AM Eastern Standard
Time<BR>To: Neuman, Jeff;
council@gnso.icann.org<BR>Subject:
AW: Motion on WHOIS Access recommendation<BR><BR>Thanks Jeff, very
helpful!<BR>These are the documents we're also referring
to.<BR><BR><BR>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: <A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html</A>
<<A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html</A>>
).<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Best
regards<BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>
Von: Neuman, Jeff [<A
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us">mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</A>]<BR>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Juni 2012
21:25<BR> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
council@gnso.icann.org<BR> Betreff:
RE: Motion on WHOIS Access
recommendation<BR><BR><BR><BR>
Wolf,<BR><BR><BR><BR> This is key,
but also please
review:<BR><BR><BR><BR>
1. SAC 51: <A
href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>
2. And the final roadmap to
implement SAC 51: <A
href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-04jun12-en.htm</A>
which is currently published and before the
board.<BR><BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
3. Also, don't forget the current
discussions with the registrars on the RAA amendments: <A
href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-04jun12-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-04jun12-en.htm</A>
which have several sections dealing with WHOIS
Access.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
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).<BR><BR><BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR><BR><BR> Given all
the work already underway, what is it that the motion adds that is not being
done?<BR><BR><BR><BR>
Thanks.<BR><BR><BR><BR> Jeffrey J.
Neuman<BR> Neustar, Inc. / Vice
President, Business
Affairs<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [<A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<BR>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:42
AM<BR> To:
council@gnso.icann.org<BR> Subject:
[council] Motion on WHOIS Access
recommendation<BR><BR><BR><BR>
All:<BR><BR><BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> In this context two
defining documents should be given attention: the RAP WG Final Report and the
WHOIS Policy Review Team Final
Report.<BR><BR><BR><BR> The RAP WG
is pointing to "basic availability of and access to WHOIS data" which implies
technical, operational and contractual aspects (see <A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf;">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf;</A>
page 71 ff)<BR><BR><BR><BR> 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 <A
href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en;">http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en;</A>
page 22 ff)<BR><BR><BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR><BR><BR> Best
regards<BR><BR>
Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>