<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>Hi Michael and Jim, <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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? <BR>
<BR>
Warm regards, <BR>
Steve<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/31/11 10:35 AM, "Michael Young" <<a href="myoung@ca.afilias.info">myoung@ca.afilias.info</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>I tend to agree with James on this one, if we are going to do something<BR>
meaningful here, let's put a plan together on how to do so.<BR>
<BR>
I think the last meeting found that we all agree that the current Whois is<BR>
at least lacking a solution for IDNs (I think we all agreed on other<BR>
shortcomings as well, but that was the most urgent one I noted). <BR>
<BR>
There are many other controversial potential Whois requirements that are<BR>
related to the Whois policy(and related studies) work going on. I suggest<BR>
we try and focus on building a requirements list of items that we believe a)<BR>
don't constrain or affect current or anticipated policy issues and have the<BR>
GNSO/IRD review and agree on that list b) if they do have policy<BR>
implications but are urgent (such as IDN enablement), let's work with the<BR>
IRD and GNSO to create some prioritized attention to the issues.<BR>
<BR>
Once you have an agreed upon set of requirements, with the relevant<BR>
stakeholders bought in, the rest becomes an examination of inventory and<BR>
then execution. We can then examine the most efficient proposals to solve<BR>
the requirements - including looking at past work to see if there's anything<BR>
worth reusing.<BR>
<BR>
Michael Young<BR>
<BR>
M:+1-647-289-1220<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: James M Galvin [<a href="mailto:jgalvin@afilias.info">mailto:jgalvin@afilias.info</a>]<BR>
Sent: January-31-11 1:23 PM<BR>
To: Steve Sheng; <a href="tech-whois@icann.org">tech-whois@icann.org</a><BR>
Subject: Re: [tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco?<BR>
<BR>
I'm not opposed to a follow up session in San Francisco but I'd like to have<BR>
a more actionable goal for the meeting than "engage a discussion on the<BR>
technical evolution of WHOIS".<BR>
<BR>
One thing that was clear from our last meeting is somebody needs to "own"<BR>
this work. A generic meeting with a generic agenda is not making progress.<BR>
If this work is going to progress then from whom is there a formal mandate<BR>
and what is it?<BR>
<BR>
Without an actionable goal we're just using up meeting slots.<BR>
<BR>
For one thing, let's be clear about whether we're talking about the Whois<BR>
protocol, the Whois data model, or the Whois data representation.<BR>
<BR>
Depending on the actionable goal, if we are going to have presentations by<BR>
RWS and IRIS, perhaps a presentation by the IRD would be helpful since it<BR>
will have something to say about future requirements for a replacement Whois<BR>
data model.<BR>
<BR>
Jim<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-- On January 26, 2011 9:52:17 AM -0800 Steve Sheng <<a href="steve.sheng@icann.org">steve.sheng@icann.org</a>><BR>
wrote regarding [tech-whois] A follow up session in San Francisco? --<BR>
<BR>
> Dear all,<BR>
><BR>
> We had a successful workshop in Cartagena last year. Thinking ahead<BR>
> for the San Francisco meeting, we would like to ask if there would be<BR>
> any interest in scheduling a follow up session in San Francisco.<BR>
> Particularly we thought about inviting IRIS and RWS authors and<BR>
> implementers to come and give presentations about their experience,<BR>
> and then engage a discussion on the technical evolution of WHOIS.<BR>
><BR>
> If there is sufficient interest, we can request a slot in the San<BR>
> Francisco meeting and invite speakers to come.<BR>
><BR>
> Warm regards,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
tech-whois mailing list<BR>
<a href="tech-whois@icann.org">tech-whois@icann.org</a><BR>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois</a><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>