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

[Steve Sheng]

Thank you Jim and Jay for your suggestion.

Warm regards,
Steve


On 2/16/11 4:37 PM, "James M Galvin" <jgalvin at afilias.info> wrote:

I agree with Jay's suggestion.

Jim



-- On February 17, 2011 11:49:40 AM +1300 Jay Daley <jay at nzrs.net.nz>
wrote regarding Re: [tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco?
--

> Hi Steve
>
> On 2/02/2011, at 2:04 PM, Steve Sheng wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I would recommend that we have a joint WG across all constituencies
> that discusses "A new directory service" and that does what Michael
> suggested, which is consider the various requirements and get
> agreement on those.  The registrar and user communities may have just
> as much input as the registries.
>
> Once that is done then we can take two further steps:
>
> 1.  Have a joint WG on whether to scrap the current WHOIS service.
> 2.  Ask the IETF to look at the protocol needed to support this new
> service including revisiting CRISP.
>
> cheers
> Jay
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20110217/3cdea5b4/attachment.html