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

Wed Feb 16 22:12:08 UTC 2011

Steve,

I don't know how to answer the question you are asking.

My first question in this thread was, "What is the purpose of the 
meeting in San Francisco?"  This question has not been answered.

The purpose of the meeting should be stated in a way that suggests 
there will be something actionable that results from the discussion.

The meeting in Cartagena was a stellar success in that we had consensus 
in that room that the Whois protocol is insufficient to meet the needs 
of domain registrations going forward.

We had very brief intro to some possible solutions.  For me the purpose 
this served was simply to alert people to the fact that there was 
technology that could solve the problem.

We had review of the IRD interim report.  This served to support the 
fact that the Whois protocol needs to be replaced, especially if that 
report does not change significantly before it is drafted in to its 
final form.

We don't need another workshop and we don't need a meeting to discuss 
the fact that we need to discuss what the Whois protocol will evolve to.

It is time now for some accountability.  If we want to examine possible 
replacements for Whois it would help to have all the requirements 
stated.  The IRD group will have some.  There may be others.  Who or 
what is accountable for developing the complete set of requirements?

Maybe we don't really have consensus that the Whois protocol should be 
replaced.  How do we know and, if not, how do we get it?

A related but equally important question is why is ICANN undertaking to 
examine this technical question?  Ordinarily ICANN looks to the IETF to 
investigate technical questions.  Of course, the IETF has already 
answered this question so if we want a different answer then we need to 
explain why.

Thanks,

Jim

-- On February 16, 2011 9:05:11 AM -0800 Steve Sheng 
<steve.sheng at icann.org> wrote regarding Re: [tech-whois] A follow up 
session in San Francisco? --

> Thanks Michael for the email, and my apologies for the late reply.
> You raised good points about requirements.
>
> I want to ask a follow up question: what do you and others think of
> using RFC 3707 (The requirement set by CRISP working group) as a
> starting point for discussion.
>
> RFC 3707 is set by the CRISP working group in IETF, and I believe the
> working group considered different technologies to replace Whois, and
> chose IRIS in the end.
>
> Warm regards,
> Steve
>
> On 2/1/11 7:56 PM, "Michael Young" <myoung at ca.afilias.info> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:jgalvin at afilias.info> ]
> Sent: January-31-11 1:23 PM
> To: Steve Sheng; tech-whois at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:tech-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois>
>
>
>
>
>
>