<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Hi Steve,</div><div><br></div><div>Just to clarify,</div><div><br></div><div>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.<br><br>Michael Young<div>Afilias</div><div>D:416-673-4109</div><div>M:647-289-1220 </div></div><div><br>On 2011-02-01, at 20:04, Steve Sheng <<a href="mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org">steve.sheng@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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"><a href="mailto:myoung@ca.afilias.info">myoung@ca.afilias.info</a></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"><a href="mailto:jgalvin@afilias.info">mailto:jgalvin@afilias.info</a></a>]<br>
Sent: January-31-11 1:23 PM<br>
To: Steve Sheng; <a href="tech-whois@icann.org"><a href="mailto:tech-whois@icann.org">tech-whois@icann.org</a></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"><a href="mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org">steve.sheng@icann.org</a></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"><a href="mailto:tech-whois@icann.org">tech-whois@icann.org</a></a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-whois</a></a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
</div></blockquote></body></html>