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

[Michael Young]

Hi Steve,

Just to clarify,

I wasn't saying the GNSO should mandate this work exclusively, I was saying the existing policy work does need to be integrated/considered in the effort. I was also suggesting we prioritize IDN related issues.

Michael Young
Afilias
D:416-673-4109
M:647-289-1220 

On 2011-02-01, at 20:04, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org> wrote:

> 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/ea967ed9/attachment.html