DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-whois] some more questions

dear TF members:  i have some background info to add to what steve found,
which may be helpful. it's the agenda from a call that the TF had last fall,
in which pual kane helpfully included (a) the Terms of Reference for the TF,
and (b) the draft outline of the report.  regards, miriam


     a) Review of the terms of reference: 
The WHOIS Committee is to conduct an information gathering exercise and
draft a report identifying areas of agreement, 
and highlighting where more work is necessary and the mechanism by which the
identified work is undertaken (Task Force/Working Group). 
Present the draft report to the community for review and comment, then
finalise the report and submit the report to the NC. 


4) Layout of the report 

            Executive Summary. 


 		Background / Set stage for what the survey does/doesn't do 
		Survey information
			Interesting anomalies
			Clear / consensus responses
			Areas where more work is necessary
			Suggestions as to the form of that additional work
		How to take the WHOIS issue to the next phase and what forum


Miriam Sapiro
Director of International Policy

VeriSign, Inc.
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington DC 20006
tel:    202-973-6600
fax:   202-466-9103
cell:  703-282-7117
email: msapiro@verisign.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@iipa.com]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:44 PM
To: 'abel@able-towers.com'; nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] some more questions

NC Whois TF members,

Thomas and Abel have raised some good questions in their recent posts.  I
did a bit of research and located the following which may be of assistance
in clarifying the scope of work this group was asked by the Names Council to
undertake.  It comes from the minutes of the Feb. 8, 2001 Names Council
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010208.NCtelecon-minutes.html) which were
approved on Feb. 26.  There may be some subsequent NC decisions that would
have an impact on this but I was not able to locate any in my quick review.

"P. Kane stressed that at this preliminary stage only NC will participate
and comments will later be requested from larger circles. He
proposed that: 

    i.the NC WHOIS Committee is to ask ICANN to create a web site and
mailing list to solicit comments of substance on the ICANN (Staff)
     WHOIS Committee report and invite other interested groups to submit
Position Papers for substantive comment on the web site and
     mailing list; 
   ii.The NC WHOIS Committee will assimilate the submitted Position Papers
and comments to produce a report high-lighting areas of
     convergence and identify areas where more work may be necessary; 
   iii.Where additional work areas are identified the NC WHOIS Committee
will prepare a Charter for consideration by the whole NC which
     may lead to the creation of a Task Force and or Working Group to work
on the identified issues. 

The following motion moved by K. Stubbs (seconded by Th. Swinehart and E.

     Decision D3: The NC will set up a Whois committee (with terms of
reference as outlined above). This decision was unanimously
     adopted. No abstentions and no votes against."

This indicates that the Names Council expects this group to return to it
with any recommendations for next steps.  This could include the launching
of a group to propose changes to the Whois status quo -- or not.  It depends
on what we conclude are "areas of convergence and areas where more work may
be necessary."  

I hope this helps and that others who have information that would help
reconstruct where we are will chime in.  

Steve Metalitz  
-----Original Message-----
From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:52 PM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] some more questions

Members and helpers of NC-Whois taskforce.

After pledging my time to help with the questionaire I have taken the
to read up on the work of the taskorce.

I am surprised (and underwrite Thomas Roessler's email with questions) at 
several points which no doubt can be cleared in no time but may help me in 
understanding how to handle the questionaires.
If I read it correct the reason for the questionaire is to (quote)"1.
input from as many people as possible concerning the use of Whois service,
2. assess whether changes should be considered to the current Whois policy 
adopted by ICANN. "

Now after a reasonable search effort I have yet to find a "task-description"

for the taskforce and therefore I find myself in the land of assumptions, 
upom which assumptions I base my questions.

1. Am I correct in assuming that the reason for the questionaire is broadly

equal to the task-description for the taskforce ?

Now assuming I am correct, since this is a broad flag to fly, I am rendered 
helpless by several striking observations (at least to me).
Please let me itterate here that I do not wish to insult anyone, have the 
greatest faith in the united capabilities in this taskforce, beacuse had I 
not, I would simply have mailed you a "thank you" note.

What I understand from a posting by DNSO Secretariat :
"Remember that we are trying to ascertain whether there is anything
 different from the analytical responses. Everyone who provided narrative
 responses has also already responded in the sections which have been
 analyzed. We are looking for "additional" and  unique information which
 the analytical responses didn't capture, as well as suggestions for
( http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00146.html )
is that the analytical evaluation has been made, will be made by the DNSO
henceforth I conclude that we are only to evaluate the "free answers" and to

derive from that a possible working advice (albeit that the advice is 
taskforce job, not something some of us were hired for)

Again I ask, is this a correct conclusion/asumption?

If it, however, is the task to ascertain (task solely meant for taskforce) 
the need for a set of rules/charter for the whois handling/maintenance, then

striking is that the analytical data is not (yet) available or the data 
supplied in a form previously asked for by Danny Younger, that allows 
taskforce members to run their own statistics against the data.

Striking also is the lack of direction in that case, whereas important
on the entire "whois" handling is influenced by more then "general input".
differentiated laws worldwide, (privacy concerns from EU, new privacy laws
be in USA and so forth) as well as a case study of current handling of whois

databases in the ccTLD  would have been excellent startpoints for 
ascertaining the need for renewals.

Of course I have not been part on any of the previous meetings, f2f or tele,

but  unfortunately strikingly little can be found in the maillinglist 
archives, normally an abundant source for research on ground principals.

I would be gratefull to the TF if a coherent statement could be made towards

us "newbies"  on what agenda the TF desires to work on, and what ultimate 
goals she wishes to achieve and preferably by what means.

I again expres my apologies to those I might insult with the above, there is

no intention to do so, in fact there is no mal-intent  (sic).

Should such guidelines be topic of contemplation within the taskforce at
moment in time then I would like to know whether the "helpers" on this list 
are welcomed to expres their thoughts on the process or whether this would
seen as to much interference.

Awaiting your answer on or of-list,

With regards,

Abel Wisman

Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>