[gnso-dow123] Next step

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jordyn:
I agree with your approach but would propose to accelerate somewhat the 
timetable and to avoid another teleconference. 

It is obvious that we have two distinct definitions of Whois purpose, each 
supported by 3 constituencies. A report expressing those two views, based on 
your presentation in Vancouver, could be put together easily. It is simply a 
matter of compiling documents that already exist. I would therfore propose that 
Maria and you assemble this information Monday, and distribute it to us over 
the list for a vote - by constituency rep., not individuals - of approval. Note 
that we are approving it only as a report on where the TF stands, and as 
something we send out for public comment. 

I see no need for another teleconf, unless you and Maria do something strange 
to the report and we have to make major modifications. ;-) 

Following this procedure, we should be able to put the thing up for public 
comment as soon as the week of Dec. 26. 

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx 12/9/2005 4:23 PM >>>
There's a question I can answer.

I think the next step for us is to prepare a preliminary report on the
topic of the purpose of Whois.  This report will likely include both
of the definitions of purpose presented in Vancouver, along with an
indication of which constituencies/reps support each.

I believe that the only question raised in Vancouver was wether in
addition to the contact information for one or more problem solves,
some sort of information that clearly ties the domain to the
registrant should be included.  I'd be interested to hear TF members'
views on this.

With that as the only outstanding issue, I think we can ask Maria to
at least start putting together the framework of a preliminary report
that will present both of the definitions.  Once that is done, we can
vote and indicate our support for the two approaches.  Then the report
can be published for public comment and we can see if there is further
feedback there that may help resolve the apparent impasse.

I suggest that we have our next call on December 20 (which I realize
is quite close to Christmas), and that we ask Maria to distribute an
initial draft of a report by December 16 (next Friday) so that we can
begin to consider in on that call.

Jordyn

On 12/9/05, Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As interesting as this discourse as, can someone fill me in on next
> steps for this working group? It wasn't quite clear coming out of VCR
> (at least not to me)...