[tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco?

[Steve Sheng]

Hi Michael and Jim,

  These questions about process are important ones. I hear Jim asking who owns the work, what's the mandate, and Michael is suggesting the mandate should be given by GNSO, and the first step is working on requirements.

  What do others on the mailing list think? Since Whois is used not only by GNSO constituencies, but by ccTLDs, RIRs as well. Should this be a joint working group with other SOs and ACs, for example with SSAC? Another question is should the discussion happen inside IETF instead of ICANN?

Warm regards,
Steve


On 1/31/11 10:35 AM, "Michael Young" <myoung at ca.afilias.info> wrote:

I tend to agree with James on this one, if we are going to do something
meaningful here, let's put a plan together on how to do so.

I think the last meeting found that we all agree that the current Whois is
at least lacking a solution for IDNs (I think we all agreed on other
shortcomings as well, but that was the most urgent one I noted).

There are many other controversial potential Whois requirements that are
related to the Whois policy(and related studies) work going on.  I suggest
we try and focus on building a requirements list of items that we believe a)
don't constrain or affect current or anticipated policy issues and have the
GNSO/IRD review and agree on that  list  b) if they do have policy
implications but are urgent (such as IDN enablement), let's work with the
IRD and GNSO to create some prioritized attention to the issues.

Once you have an agreed upon set of requirements, with the relevant
stakeholders bought in, the rest becomes an examination of inventory and
then execution.  We can then examine the most efficient proposals to solve
the requirements - including looking at past work to see if there's anything
worth reusing.

Michael Young

M:+1-647-289-1220

-----Original Message-----
From: James M Galvin [mailto:jgalvin at afilias.info]
Sent: January-31-11 1:23 PM
To: Steve Sheng; tech-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco?

I'm not opposed to a follow up session in San Francisco but I'd like to have
a more actionable goal for the meeting than "engage a discussion on the
technical evolution of WHOIS".

One thing that was clear from our last meeting is somebody needs to "own"
this work.  A generic meeting with a generic agenda is not making progress.
If this work is going to progress then from whom is there a formal mandate
and what is it?

Without an actionable goal we're just using up meeting slots.

For one thing, let's be clear about whether we're talking about the Whois
protocol, the Whois data model, or the Whois data representation.

Depending on the actionable goal, if we are going to have presentations by
RWS and IRIS, perhaps a presentation by the IRD would be helpful since it
will have something to say about future requirements for a replacement Whois
data model.

Jim




-- On January 26, 2011 9:52:17 AM -0800 Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org>
wrote regarding [tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco? --

> Dear all,
>
>   We had a successful workshop in Cartagena last year. Thinking ahead
> for the San Francisco meeting, we would like to ask if there would be
> any interest in scheduling a follow up session in San Francisco.
> Particularly we thought about inviting IRIS and RWS authors and
> implementers to come and give presentations about their experience,
> and then engage a discussion on the technical evolution of WHOIS.
>
>   If there is sufficient interest, we can request a slot in the San
> Francisco meeting and invite speakers to come.
>
> Warm regards,


_______________________________________________
tech-whois mailing list
tech-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tech-whois/attachments/20110201/0adffa19/attachment.html