Dear NCUCers:

Please find attached the meeting notes prepared by Chuck Gomes on the last call of the WHOIS Studies drafting team. A few changes have been made in the motion concerning the wording of studies 3 and 20, which are highlighted in the document. 

This is the text of the motion, as of the last DT conference call. As further changes may still be suggested during discussions at the GNSO list, please feel free to send us your comment on that.

Best,
Carlos


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 proxy and privacy services are not revealing registrant/licensee data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as required to avoid liability under RAA 3.7.7.3. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html  

Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and reliably relay information requests to and from registrants/licensees. 
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. 
 

-----Mensagem original-----
De: [log in to unmask] em nome de Gomes, Chuck
Enviada: qua 4/2/2009 17:28
Para: [log in to unmask]
Assunto: [gnso-whois-dt] Whois Study DT 4 Feb 09 meeting notes
 
Meeting notes for today's Whois Study DT are attached.  Note that
several edits were made to the hypotheses for Studies 3 and 20 in Group
E.  Please review those and comment on the list whether you are okay
with them or have concerns.  Our goal is to finalize the edits and hence
the full motion by end of this week and send the revised motion to the
Council list for distribution the all GNSO participants.
 
Steve Metalitz - Because I believe you were the author of Study 20, your
review and comment is particularly critical.  Note that the author of
Study 3, Steve DelBianco was on the call so he participated actively in
the edits for hypothesis 3.
 
Thanks, Chuck