Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] weekly status report

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the report Mike. I'm one of the "newbies" on this WG, and this is 
actually the first WG I participate in. I'd like to thank you all for the 
support you've shown to the less experienced members of the WG, and I will take 
you up on your offer to ask stupid questions, so I hope you will all bear with 
me!! :)

From what I can tell, part of the WG charter states that we should "take into 
account other ICANN initiatives that may help inform the deliberations". The 
bullets listing these initiatives includes (but is not limited to) "Output from 
any/all of the four Whois Studies chartered by the GNSO Council, if completed 
in time for consideration by the WG". If I'm not mistaken, one of these 
initiatives is the WHOIS Service Requirements WG, which should be processing 
the results of the WHOIS technical requirements survey they've conducted around 
now.

I'm guessing the results of this survey might be of relevance and worthy our 
consideration before we draft an initial report of our own. Should we fit this 
into our schedule, or am I way off on this?

Thanks again.

Amr

On Nov 18, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 
> hi all,
> 
> here's the first status report for the Thick Whois WG.  it's interesting 
> mostly because i've had a go at laying out a work plan and dropping the big 
> events in the "Milestones" column (pity Marika, she's seeing it for the first 
> time too -- she's allowed to whack me if i've goofed it up).
> 
> as i mentioned on the call, we're going to have to set a pretty brisk pace in 
> order to hit the Beijing meeting -- but i still think it's possible.  so take 
> a look at the dates and see what you think.  
> 
> the "topics" i'm talking about are the topics listed in the Charter:
> 
> –  response consistency;
> –  stability; accessibility;
> –  impact on privacy and data protection
> –  cost implications;
> –  synchronization / migration;
> –  authoritativeness;
> –  competition in registry services;
> –  existing Whois applications;
> –  data escrow;
> –  registrar Port 43 Whois requirements.
> 
> plus these if we decide that this is a good plan
> 
> –  Cost implications for gTLD registries, registrars and registrants of a 
> transition to ‘thick’ Whois
> –  Guidelines as to how to conduct such a transition (timeline, requirements, 
> potential changes to Registration Agreements, etc.)
> –  Are special provisions and/or exemptions needed for gTLD registries which 
> operate a ‘thick’ Whois but provide tiered access, for example?
> 
> i am proposing that we bash through outlining 3 topics per call for the first 
> four calls, and then take the time after SC/C statements are in to hammer 
> down a draft Initial Report.  so we may want to take some time on this 
> upcoming call to try an figure out what order we do the topics in.  
> identifying some of the "harder" topics and moving them down a few calls 
> seems like a way for us to get under way, no?  also ponder whether there are 
> some topics that should come before other topics.  sequencing the topics is 
> something i want to spend some time on this Tuesday.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> <Thick-WHOIS WG Status report 1 Sheet1.pdf>
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>