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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Great. Good luck, Don…, and thanks.

Amr

On Nov 19, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Don Blumenthal wrote:

> 
> Amr,
> 
> I'm part of the survey WG. We did present questions that could be relevant to 
> this group. We have begun to process results and should have a report in time 
> for PDP use.
> 
> Don
> 
> Sent from my PDA phone
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amr Elsadr [aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Sunday, 18 Nov 2012, 2:45pm
> To: Thick Whois WG [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] weekly status report
> 
> 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<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
> Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 
> 
>