[bc-gnso] Response from Liz - FW: Draft RAP Motion - WHOIS Access Recommendation #1
Dear All, Please find below some suggested options to deal with the Resolved clause of the WHOIS Access Recommendation #1 in the Draft RAP Motion. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 25 August 2011 00:39 To: Marika Konings; Zahid Jamil (zahid@xxxxxxxxx) Subject: FW: Draft RAP Motion - WHOIS Access Recommendation #1 Hi Zahid, Marika and I have been discussing your comment on the Whois access recommendation, so I thought I'd send a note directly to you. None of the pending Whois studies really deal with the issue of access or availability of Whois. So if you would like to see the issue get addressed on a faster track than waiting for some future potential debate on Whois following completion of the studies (clearly not optimal...J), I can think of 3 possible avenues to raise it sooner: 1. There is reference to "access" in the technical inventory of Whois survey requirements that staff prepared in 2010, see: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-2 9jul10-en.pdf. The report notes that this could be improved (and made auditable) in the future. The exact text says: Define a framework and baseline set of metrics that can accommodate future policy development for auditing of WHOIS access. Recently the GNSO formed a WG to survey the community about this report (you may recall Chuck Gomes and Avri Doria suggesting this several meetings ago). At minimum we could make sure there is a question on this in the survey, as a way of determining community interest in this potential requirement. The survey development work is underway, Michael Young is the Chair of the WG, and I am staffing it. 2. The Proposed amendments to the RAA that were included in the RAA Amendments Final Report - includes as a "Medium Priority" -- Service Level Agreement on Whois availability (Matrix item 6.7), see: p. 22 of http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oc t10-en.pdf . You could work with other CSG and NCSG members to develop a strategy for continuing GNSO work on those proposed amendments. 3. You could take some first steps, leading potentially to initiate a PDP on this specific issue. For example -- You could suggest laying a foundation by suggesting a workshop in Costa Rica on the topic of access and availability, with speakers from Compliance (what are our current requirements) and from users who have concerns, etc. Staff could help you get space and pull together panelists, etc.. IT's good to begin to build a public record of the problem, with documentation if possible, before suggesting an Issue Report. Following a workshop or maybe a statement of concern that you circulate among potentially interested stakeholders, your constituency could move to request an Issue Report. We can talk more about these options but if it is a big issue of concern to you I do not think it would make sense to wait for the studies. And I strongly suggest some community "fact finding/workshop" before requesting an Issue Report. Of course you can take options 2 or 3 at any time separate from Registration Abuse recommendation. But the fact that the recommendation was made also helps leverage pursuing either 2 or 3 above. Make sense? Hope this helps. Best, Liz From: Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:08 AM To: Liz Gasster Subject: Re: Draft RAP Motion - WHOIS Access Recommendation #1 Zahid's comment is: 'I wonder if there is some more formal exchange to direct which ever groups responsible for the studies to consider the RAPWG final report on this recommendation and said group specifically advise the GNSO as to whether the recommendations should be implemented or dropped. I guess I'm looking for more of a warm hand-off instead of remain idle for studies to be completed 6+ months down the road'. My response to Zahid was that at this stage there is no group responsible for the studies to whom the recommendation could be directed, but that I would check with you to confirm or whether you would have any other suggestions on how to make sure this recommendation is not forgotten by the time the Council starts looking at the studies. I mentioned that it would be kept in the project list under outstanding recommendations, so that it hopefully wouldn't get lost or forgotten. Best regards, Marika <<attachment: winmail.dat>> |