I will be on the call later today and then report back to list.
Best,
Carlos
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Non-Commercial User Constituency em nome de William Drake
Enviada: qua 4/2/2009 08:26
Para: [log in to unmask]
Assunto: Fwd: [gnso-whois-dt] RE: [council] WHOIS motion from the Whois drafting team for Council consideration
As expected, notwithstanding NCUC's opposition to studies, the process
seems to be crawling forward. The info for today's call is at the
bottom. i'll be on a plane and won't be on the call, Carlos will you?
BD
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: January 29, 2009 10:58:19 PM GMT+01:00
> To: "Liz Gasster" <[log in to unmask]>, "GNSO Council" <[log in to unmask]
> >
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] RE: [council] WHOIS motion from the Whois
> drafting team for Council consideration
>
> Thanks Liz.
>
> All Councilors: Please forward this ASAP to the groups you
> represent for discussion.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:45 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [council] WHOIS motion from the Whois drafting team for
> Council consideration
>
> All,
>
> Attached and posted on the WHOIS discussion workspace is the draft
> motion that the WHOIS studies drafting team has prepared for Council
> consideration. (This is not for action on today's Council call).
> See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_references
>
> Although not noted in the attached, staff has a concern about Study
> Group E (studies 3 and 20), which involve RAA provision 3.7.7.3.
> Staff does not believe the studies can be conducted as described in
> the attached, and we have drafted alternative language that we think
> could be the subject of a study of the relevant provision. I can
> elaborate at the appropriate time, but I wanted to flag our concern
> as this language is circulating.
>
> Thanks, Liz
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: February 3, 2009 12:04:13 AM GMT+01:00
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] 4 Feb Whois Study DT Meeting Agenda
>
> The proposed 4 Feb Whois Study DT Meeting Agenda is attached and
> copied below. It seems to me that we should be able to accomplish
> what is needed in less than 30 minutes. If any group will not be
> represented in the meeting, please respond to the questions to be
> discussed under agenda items 5 & 6 via this list before our call on
> Wednesday.
>
> Thanks, Chuck
>
>
> Agenda
>
> Start recording
> Welcome
> Roll call
> Review/modify agenda
> Draft Motion for Council
> Refer to motion copied at the end of the agenda.
> Remaining issues:
>
> i. Should we add GAC Data Set 1 to the motion as agreed in our
> last meeting?
> 1. Note that it is not included in the motion copied below.
> 2. Liz's concerns
> 3. Tim concerns
> 4. Other concerns?
>
> ii. Staff's concern about study #s 3 and 20, related to RAA
> provision 3.7.7.3.
> 1. Note that these studies are included in the motion copied
> below.
> 2. Staff concerns - Liz
> 3. Other concerns?
>
> iii. Other issues?
> iv.
> Note that the motion copied below was sent to the Council list on 29
> January.
> v.
> Actions: Finalize changes, if any, and resend to Council list if
> necessary.
> Definitions of key study terms
> Any further discussion?
> Should the terms be sent to the Council list?
>
> i. For information only?
>
> ii. For action?
> Next meeting: TBD - depends on Council action
>
>
> GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois
> studies.
>
> Whereas:
>
> In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
> Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable
> understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system
> would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/
> )
>
> Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited
> suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on
> WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/
> ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on
> Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf
> )
>
> On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study
> Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended
> studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost
> estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml
> )
>
> The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further
> studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form
> another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the
> 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the
> GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf
> )
>
> This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and
> to deliver a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG
> delivered its report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg
> #Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
>
> On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its
> recommendations for consolidating and considering further Whois
> studies. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct08.pdf
>
> On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of
> special meetings on Whois studies, and to solicit further
> constituency views assessing both the priority level and the
> feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed,
> with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed
> for cost and feasibility. The Council would then ask staff to
> perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the Council
> would decide which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri
> Doria convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested
> constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if
> any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This 'Whois Study
> Drafting Team' is tracked on a wiki page at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion
> .
>
> The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data
> requested by the GAC. For each of the consolidated studies,
> constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess
> feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings,
> while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no
> further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign
> priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.
>
> The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest
> average priority scores should be the subject of further research to
> determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. The selection of
> these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration of
> the remaining studies.
>
> Resolved:
>
> Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost
> estimates for the Whois studies listed below, and report its
> findings to Council by [date].
>
> 1) Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2):
>
> Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a
> material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural
> persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html
>
> Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor
> extent to generate spam and other such illegal or undesirable
> activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html
>
> Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses
> caused by public display of Whois. Significant abuses would include
> use of WHOIS data in spam generation, abuse of personal data, loss
> of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html
>
>
> 2) Study 11.
>
> Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois
> records will detract from data accuracy and readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html
>
>
> 3) Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11)
>
> Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is
> increasing when compared with the total number of registrations; b)
> Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the investigation and
> disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other
> sites perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy
> registrations and non-private registrations; c) Domain names
> registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately
> associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as
> compared with non-proxy registrations or non-private registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html
>
> Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by
> proxy/privacy services are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html
>
> GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is
> curtailed or
> prevented by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.
>
> GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or
> privacy services are disproportionately associated with fraud and
> other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy registrations.
>
>
> 4) Group E (Studies 3 & 20)
>
> Study 3 hypothesis: Some registrars are not revealing registrant
> data that is shielded by proxy services when presented with requests
> that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as required
> under RAA 3.7.7.3.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html
>
> Study 20 hypotheses: a. Some proxy and privacy services do not
> promptly and reliably relay information requests to and from actual
> registrants. b. Some proxy and privacy services are failing to
> adhere to RAA 3.7.7.3.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html
>
>
> 5) Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6)
>
> GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who
> are legal entities are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies
> they are natural persons. Furthermore the percentage of registrants
> with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the
> nation or continent of registration.
>
> GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who
> are operating domains with a commercial purpose are providing
> inaccurate Whois data that implies they are acting without
> commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with
> such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation
> or continent of registration.
>
>
> 6) Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10)
>
> Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by
> proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes and not for
> use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html
>
> Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal
> the identity of registrants who use proxy services is directed
> toward registrations made by
> natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html
>
> GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/
> privacy service users are legal persons.
>
> GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains
> that are registered using proxy/privacy services are used for
> commercial purposes.
>
>
>
>
> Council further requests that Staff refer to original study
> submissions (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/
> ), for statements of how study results could lead to an improvement
> in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/
> study needed, including data elements, data sources, population to
> be surveyed, and sample size.
>
> Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates
> for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested
> hypotheses. At any time, Staff may come back to Council with
> questions regarding study hypotheses.
>
> Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to
> GAC representatives once it has been approved.
>
>
|
