Versions Compared

Old Version 9

changes.mady.by.user Lisa Phifer

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Alice Jansen

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
(red star)Objective

Consistent with ICANN’s mission and Bylaws, Section 4.6(e)(iv), the Review Team will (a) evaluate the extent to which ICANN Org has implemented each prior Directory Service Review recommendation (noting differences if any between recommended and implemented steps), (b) assess to the degree practical the extent to which implementation of each recommendation was effective in addressing the issue identified by the prior RT or generated additional information useful to management and evolution of WHOIS (RDS), and (c) determine if any specific measurable steps should be recommended to enhance results achieved through the prior RT’s recommendations. This includes developing a framework to measure and assess the effectiveness of recommendations, and applying that approach to all areas of WHOIS originally assessed by the prior RT (as applicable). 

RT1 Recommendations to be assessed by this subgroup:

Recommendation #2 - Single WHOIS Policy

(red star)Leader/Rapporteur: Carlton Samuels

(red star)Members: Carlton Samuels, Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, Thomas Walden

(red star)Mailing-list archives:  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-whoispolicy/

(red star)Conference calls

(red star)Review Team Templates: see here

Subgroup Documents

Date

Document (Versions in Red are latest)

File

Background Documents

Further background documents may be found on the Review Team's overall Background Materials page.

(red star)Leader/Rapporteur: Carlton Samuels

(red star)Members: Carlton Samuels, Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, Thomas Walden

(red star)Mailing-list archives:  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-whoispolicy/

(red star)Conference calls: see here

(red star)Review Team Templates: see here


Subgroup Documents

Date

Document (Versions in Red are latest)

File

Subgroup Report

 

v8DOCX

 

v7 (incl. FtoF #3 Agreements)DOCX

 

v6DOCX

 

v5DOCX

 

v4DOCX

 

v3DOCX

v2DOCX

 

v1DOCX
Face-to-Face Mtg #2 Slides - Findings

v1PPTX
Planning Questions

 

v1PPT
First Pass Document

 

v3

DOCX

 

v2DOCX

 

v1DOCX

ICANN org Briefings/Answers

Open Actions/Requests

*To be provided once reasonable date is determined by appropriate subject-matter expert

Item #Source of RequestDate of RequestAction Item RequestAction Owner

Anticipated Completion Date*

Progress Notes

Completed Actions/Requests

*To be provided once reasonable date is determined by appropriate subject-matter expert

Item #Source of RequestDate of RequestAction Item RequestAction Owner

Anticipated Completion Date*

Progress NotesCompleted ResponseCompletion Date
6#35

 

Update the subgroup report to turn current recommendation text into conclusion, followed by any further recommended action (if any).Carlton



5#33

 

Schedule subgroup call to update draft and recommendation to reflect recent eventsICANN org



3#1

 

Interview RT1 members to understand intended benefits of rec 2 and consider providing those as input to the RDS PDPSubgroup

CLOSED

 

4#25

 

Subgroup report pending subgroup review, if no replies by COB today (Friday 6 April), Carlton to send to RT.Carlton

 


Subgroup report shared via email with review team

 

1#1

 

Carlton to write up these findings and the proposed subgroup conclusion

Carlton

Subgroup report shared via email with review team

 

2

#1

   

ICANN org to identify members of WHOIS1 Review Team (still active at ICANN) that worked on recommendation 2

ICANN org

 



 


Decisions Reached

SourceDateDecision
FtoF #3

 

No objection to conclusions reached by this subgroup, with no recommendation made.

#1

 

Not useful to assess whether it would have been useful to develop a single WHOIS policy, since that was infeasible. Instead, assess what was done to create a consolidated policy document

#1

 

Look to GNSO RDS PDP for a future single WHOIS (RDS) policy