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. > >