[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] For the next call - draft final report and draft motion for review
Dear All, In anticipation of our next call next Tuesday 10 March, I would like to encourage you to review the latest version of the draft Final Report which you can find on the Wiki (https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_jun08) and the comment that was circulated in relation to the report (see below) prior to the call. For those of you that were not able to participate in the ICANN Mexico City meeting IRTP Part A PDP WG update to the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council has requested the WG to provide, in combination with the submission of the final report, draft motions for its consideration. One motion would relate to the final report and the recommendations made by the WG, while a second motion would relate to the WG's recommendation on which IRTP PDP to initiate next (if different from the current order outlined here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf). You will find a draft motion relating to the recommendations of the WG attached for your review. Please feel free to share your comments / suggestions with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika ------ Forwarded Message From: Michael Collins <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:44:35 -0800 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Updated version of draft final report posted on Wiki I am not sure that we should limit the study of IRIS viability to that of a replacement of Whois. I did not understand in our call that this was the recommendation that we were making. Without the analysis data I do not know but, it might be that IRIS could function separate from whois solely to provide registrant information to gaining registrars for the purpose of IRTP. Can we change "The Working Group, recognizing that it is not specifically in the remit of this Working Group to make any recommendations for Whois modification, does support further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars once IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness as a potential replacement of the WHOIS protocol are more fully understood." to "The Working Group, recognizing that it is not specifically in the remit of this Working Group to make any recommendations for Whois modification, does support further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and recommends an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes. We could leave it up to any future Whois workgroup (pity those souls) to determine whether IRIS should replace Whois, though the analysis data could be useful for their purposes. Best regards, Michael Collins +1. 407 242 9009 mobile Attachment:
Draft motion - IRTP Part A - 5 March 2009.doc |