April 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Message from the GNSO Council Chair
by Stéphane Van Gelder 29 Apr '11

29 Apr '11

Councillors, As discussed on the call today, please see below the message Glen has just sent the JAS co-chairs on my behalf. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Date : 28 avril 2011 15:37:04 HAEC > À : Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Cc : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> > Objet : Message from the GNSO Council Chair > > Sent on behalf of the GNSO Council chair: Stéphane van Gelder > _____________________________________________________________ > > Carlton, Rafik, > > Just a short note to let you know that the GNSO Council was disappointed not to have you on our April 28, 2011 conference call, where we had set aside an agenda item on the JAS and were looking forward to being updated on the group's work by you. > > The Council understands that other commitments may have prevented you from attending and would like to extend another invitation to join us at our next meeting on May 19. > > Please let me know if you are able to attend. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > ________________________ > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org

3 6

Fwd: Recommendations from the ALAC to the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group Chairs
by Stéphane Van Gelder 29 Apr '11

29 Apr '11

Councillors, With Olivier's permission, please see email below from ALAC to JAS co-chairs. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Date : 29 avril 2011 10:40:12 HAEC > À : Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > Cc : ALAC EXCOM <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Karla Valente <karla.valente(a)icann.org> > Objet : Recommendations from the ALAC to the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group Chairs > > Dear JAS WG Co-Chairs, > > As one of the two chartering AC/SOs of the JAS WG, the ALAC would like to offer certain recommendations for your consideration, in order to boost the WG’s efforts efficiently forward at this point. It is the ALAC’s hope that these recommendations will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended – as guidance rooted in the shared goal of having the JAS WG fulfil its mandate within the agreed timetable. > > The ALAC recommends that the JAS WG – starting with its conference call on Friday, 29 April – thoroughly review the “JAS Issues and Recommendations” summary document (located at https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations), created by the JAS Drafting Team. This document, once complete, will define and summarize the JAS WG’s consensus on a select number of important high-level issues, particularly: > Part 3: the required criteria of applicants qualifying for support (i.e. who can qualify), bringing the element of formulation of these criteria from Part 5 into this part; and > To a lesser extent, Part 4: what these applicants can expect to get. > These issues are covered by the parts on which the ALAC recommends the WG most strongly focus. As per the WG's Charter, substantive outcome is sought particularly in these issues. > > The goal of this review would be to facilitate the JAS WG’s discussion – and resolution – of those aspects of this document that are still incomplete or for which there is still no clear WG consensus. > Please note that many of these unresolved issues are currently marked in red within the document. We believe that the needed agreement on this small number of high-level issues can be reached without the WG’s also having to agree, at this time, on the many underlying details it has been discussing. > > Specifically, the ALAC recommends that the JAS WG go about the review of this document – and reaching agreement on the issues it covers – in the following way: > > This document review could be efficiently moderated by the JAS WG pen holder, Evan Leibovitch. > The document should be displayed in the meeting’s Adobe Connect Room so that all members are, quite literally, on the same page. > The changes on which the JAS WG agrees should be made to the document during the discussion itself – that is, "in real time" during the WG’s meeting. > It is the ALAC’s hope that the JAS WG, by focusing its work in this way immediately (as of its 29 April meeting), will be able to successfully reach a consensus on a number of fundamental issues in the few meetings it still has before the 6 May deadline for reporting on the time critical key issues and its charters from GNSO and ALAC to be completed. > > I and other members of the ALAC Executive Committee would welcome the opportunity to discuss these suggestions with you further. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair >

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 28 April 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official Council minutes, please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 28 April 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen 1. WHOIS Motion Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/). Before defining study details, 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-25…). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, ifany, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to providecost 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 a new WHOIS Hypotheses working group to prepare a list of hypotheses from 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). The WG reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st…). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. TheWhois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies including those from the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). The 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. On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to Council. (See Motion 3, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903). On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois "Misuse" and Whois "Registrant Identification" Studies, finding that each study would cost approximately $150,000 (USD) and take approximately one year to complete. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en…). The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such identification with the use of proxy/privacyservices. The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least $400,000 (USD) for WHOIS studies (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8). On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to proceed with the Whois "Misuse" Study, which would explore the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009. On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct…. This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy orprivacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts withoverall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations. This study was estimated to cost $150,000 (USD) and take less than a year to complete. On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois Proxy and Privacy "Relay and Reveal" study, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…, which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed. The staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and recommended that a pre-study "survey" be conducted first, to determine if launching a full study is feasible to do. Resolved: Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study to include the RySG proposed changes http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-recommendations-rysg-29mar11… and to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, as described in staff's 5-October-2010 report as amended, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct…. Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the Whois Privacy and Proxy "Relay and Reveal" pre-study survey, as proposed in staff's 11-February-2011 report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…. Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional funding for FY 2012 for Whois studies, to make up any shortfall of $130,000 (USD) between the amount of "at least $400,000" (USD) that was allocated for Whois studies in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the Whois Misuse Study ($150,000) (USD); the Whois Registrant Identification Study ($150,000) (USD) if subsequently approved; the Proxy/Privacy "Abuse" Study ($150,000) (USD); and the Proxy and Privacy "Pre-study" ($80,000) (USD), total of $530,000 (USD). Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting completion of the studies as efficiently as possible. 2. Motion to terminate the Policy Process Steering Committee WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency, and the Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP WT), which was chartered to make recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP; WHEREAS the WG WT has already completed its tasks; WHEREAS the PDP WT has worked diligently to develop the proposed new GNSO Policy Development Process and expects to deliver a final report soon; WHEREAS submitting the PDP-WT report to the PPSC would add additional delay to the completion and approval of the new GNSO PDP; WHEREAS a Standing Committee for Improvement Implementation (SCI) has been created and will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, the GNSO Council hereby terminates the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the PPSC for their dedication and commitment. RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests the Charter of the PDP-WT to be updated from 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for PPSC review' to 'the Policy Development Process Team shall be responsible for making recommendations concerning the development of and transition to a new PDP for the GNSO Council's review'. RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council hereby instructs the SCI to amend its charter approved by the GNSO Council on April 7, 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104) to include "recommendations provided by the PDP-WT as approved by the GNSO Council" in addition to those recommended by the OSC and PPSC as approved by the GNSO Council. 3. Motion re: Public Comments on Global Outreach Recommendations WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for implementing the various GNSO Improvements at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008; WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the OSC established three work teams, including the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team, which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations at: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…; WHEREAS, one of the recommendations in BGC Report was to develop and implement a targeted outreach program to explore the formation of new constituency groups; WHEREAS, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) was tasked with developing the recommendations on a global outreach program and submitted the document to the OSC for consideration on 21 January 2011; WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 February 2011 the document "Recommendations to Develop a Global Outreach Program to Broaden Participation in the GNSO" at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf; WHEREAS, the OSC recommendations describe a global outreach strategy to relevant members of the public, particularly non-English speakers and those from developing countries/regions; and for development of global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation both from current members of the ICANN community as well as potential members, particularly non-English speakers; WHEREAS, on 24 February 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the document by the OSC and directed staff to post the document for forty-five (45) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach; WHEREAS, ICANN Staff produced a Summary and Analysis document of the four comments received and posted it in the Forum at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council directs the OSC to ask the CSG-WT to review the Summary and Analysis document as well as the comments and make any changes to the proposed recommendations as are deemed appropriate, or to make those changes directly as it sees fit. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 28 April 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 28 April, 2011 on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr 28 April GNSO Council Teleconference 11:00 UTC MP3 http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20110428-en.mp3 Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Message from the GNSO Council Chair
by Rafik Dammak 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

fyi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: 2011/4/29 Subject: Re: Message from the GNSO Council Chair To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, Stéphane Van Gelder < stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org" < gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello, checking emails after long flight going back from Tunisia to Japan, I am quite surprised by the emails from Stephane and Carlton. I will listen anyway later to the mp3 recordings. I already sent notification that I am not going to attend the GNSO council call as I had to travel. I am happy to sent a written update to the list anyway. I didn't receive any request for making an update from GNSO council leaders and I am not aware if Carlton received such request or not.what I know that he was travelling because work commitment these last weeks preventing him from attending JAS calls and he won't be able to attend tomorrow JAS call. I already did update when I was asked to do, like last time in SF meeting during the weekend (I am glad by the interest on JAS works since last time I was urged by my GNSO council chair to shorten my presentation) @Carlton did you receive email(s) asking you to represent JAS WG as co-chair to make update for GNSO council or respond to it or not? For 19th May, I will be present and then I will do the update as usual. it is primary the task of co-chairs or liaison and asking other representative is something exceptional when the formers are not able to be present. Best Regards Rafik PS even if I am in the GNSO ML, I would ask to pass this message to the council. 2011/4/29 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Dear Stephane: > I'm responding to this from the Miami Airport, enroute to Belize on > assignment. I too was disappointed that the JAS group was not represented at > the Council. Unfortunately for me, the real business of making a living > intervened and prevented my connection. > > I note you invitation for the May 19th meeting and will certainly put it on > my agenda. In the event a higher priority matter comes about, I shall do my > best to vice one of my colleagues to the meeting. > > Kind regards, > Carlton Samuels > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>wrote: > >> Sent on behalf of the GNSO Council chair: Stéphane van Gelder >> _____________________________________________________________ >> >> Carlton, Rafik, >> >> Just a short note to let you know that the GNSO Council was disappointed >> not to have you on our April 28, 2011 conference call, where we had set >> aside an agenda item on the JAS and were looking forward to being updated on >> the group's work by you. >> >> The Council understands that other commitments may have prevented you from >> attending and would like to extend another invitation to join us at our next >> meeting on May 19. >> >> Please let me know if you are able to attend. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> ________________________ >> Glen de Saint Géry >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> > >

2 1

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Input for Upcoming Public Comments - ATRT Recommendation 21
by Stéphane Van Gelder 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

Councillors, In response to the request below, I asked Staff to help us compile a list of possible comment periods that might be on the cards from the GNSO in the coming year. Liz Gasster has just forwarded the attached list, and I would like to thank her and her team for working on this at such short notice. I would like to respond with this list. If anyone has any comments or would like to add any items that they expect for the upcoming year, please let me know asap so that this can be added to my response to Filiz. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> > Date : 21 avril 2011 10:50:41 HAEC > À : "soac-discussion(a)icann.org" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> > Objet : [soac-discussion] Input for Upcoming Public Comments - ATRT Recommendation 21 > > > Dear SO/AC Leaders, > > On 18 March 2011, at ICANN 40 in Silicon valley, San Francisco, ICANN Board has adopted resolutions in regards to Final ATRT recommendations. > > One of these recommendations, Recommendation 21, is about an annual work plan that forecasts matters that will require public input. > The full recommendation reads as follows (from http://icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-final-recommendations-31dec10-…): > > "21. The Board should request ICANN staff to work on a process for developing an annual work plan that forecasts matters that will require public input so as to facilitate timely and effective public input." > > In order to be able to implement this recommendation, we are seeking your input about topics that you think will be opened for Public Comment within the rest of 2011. As the ICANN Community leaders you are very well aware of the issues that are being discussed or to be discussed within your groups that will require public input. Accordingly, we hope that you will share your opinions with us this matter. This will provide us very valuable feedback for the compilation of this list. > > I will be very happy if you can send these topics to me until 2 May 2011. > It will be very useful if you can also provide a brief description of the matter as well. > This will be very helpful for those who are not very familiar with these issues. > > Then we will work on the list internally and we will publish one compiled list at the ICANN Public Comment webpage. > > Thank you for your contribution in advance and I hope to see you in person soon in Singapore! > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > > >

1 0

Fwd: Message from the GNSO Council Chair
by Stéphane Van Gelder 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

FYI, Carlton's response. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Date : 28 avril 2011 17:20:12 HAEC > À : Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Cc : Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, "gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> > Objet : Rép : Message from the GNSO Council Chair > > Dear Stephane: > I'm responding to this from the Miami Airport, enroute to Belize on assignment. I too was disappointed that the JAS group was not represented at the Council. Unfortunately for me, the real business of making a living intervened and prevented my connection. > > I note you invitation for the May 19th meeting and will certainly put it on my agenda. In the event a higher priority matter comes about, I shall do my best to vice one of my colleagues to the meeting. > > Kind regards, > Carlton Samuels > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > ============================= > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> wrote: > Sent on behalf of the GNSO Council chair: Stéphane van Gelder > _____________________________________________________________ > > Carlton, Rafik, > > Just a short note to let you know that the GNSO Council was disappointed not to have you on our April 28, 2011 conference call, where we had set aside an agenda item on the JAS and were looking forward to being updated on the group's work by you. > > The Council understands that other commitments may have prevented you from attending and would like to extend another invitation to join us at our next meeting on May 19. > > Please let me know if you are able to attend. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > ________________________ > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org >

1 0

BC Consumer Trust metrics
by john＠crediblecontext.com 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

2 1

Fwd: Whois Service Requirements Inventory Report and soliciting your thoughts
by Stéphane Van Gelder 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

Councillors, Please find attached Chuck's proposals on this. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date : 14 avril 2011 23:55:40 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org>, <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, <mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Objet : RE: Whois Service Requirements Inventory Report and soliciting your thoughts > > Stéphane, > > In response to your request, I prepared the attached suggestions as possible next steps. > > Chuck Gomes, Vice President, Policy & Compliance > Verisign Naming > > > > 3108 Ponte Morino Drive, Suite 110/117, Cameron Park , CA 95682 > Office: +1 530 676-1100; Mobile: +1 703 362-8753 > > “This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission.” > > >

2 1

Re: [council] Whois Studies
by tim＠godaddy.com 28 Apr '11

28 Apr '11

Thanks for the explanation Jonathan. Tim -----Original Message----- From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:10:45 To: 'Tim Ruiz'<tim(a)godaddy.com> Reply-To: <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Cc: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Whois Studies Hi Tim, Looking back on the issues in preparation for today’s call, I realise I didn’t reposing to this point. Apologies. As I understand it, the situation is likely to pan out as follows: 1. The small group looking into the WHOIS Studies will develop a recommendation for Study 2 improvements and present those to the Council. This could consist of one recommendation or a couple of alternative approaches to give the Council some options. This will become clearer in the next few weeks as they dig a little deeper. 2. Staff will evaluate what the impact may be on the bids that have already been received and give their opinion to the Council regarding whether or not it will be necessary to go back to the bidders to reassess their estimates. 3. The Council will do its due diligence and make a decision whether or not to approve the study with any modifications. 4. If Council approves a modified study 2, then Staff will interact with the bidders to evaluate the impact of the changes and take necessary steps to determine any cost to time estimates and report that information to the Council in case any of the estimates change. I trust that’s a helpful update and useful ahead of the GNSO meeting and apologies again for the delay in responding. Best wishes, Jonathan From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: 20 April 2011 21:30 To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Whois Studies Won't the researchers who responded to the RFP need to review the changes and comment on their cost and feasibility? Will June 1 allow enough time for that? Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Whois Studies > From: "Jonathan Robinson" > Date: Wed, April 20, 2011 2:09 pm > To: > > FW: Whois StudiesAll, > > Based on the rationalisation outlined below, I would like to propose that Council further defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study i.e. that the motion be amended as follows: > > “Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.” > > The rationale for further delay is that the small working group of volunteers has met twice recently to discuss the Whois Study #2, the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study. The intention was to have a revised Study 2 proposal for Council consideration in the 28 April meeting. They anticipated making revisions to reduce presumptively negative terminology while retaining the original study design to prove/disprove a hypothesis that natural persons were using privacy/proxy while also engaging in commercial activities. But the discussion revealed more extensive questions about study 2: > · First, they believe that the present Study 2 proposal could be easily amended to answer all four registrant identification questions posed by the GAC in their April-2008 recommendations. > · Second, they believe that the objective and results of Study 2 can be improved to generate broader and deeper analysis that would provide needed context for GNSO and ICANN in future work on these issues. > Their goal will be to submit Study 2 recommendations to the Council not later than 1 June, in time for the 9 June Council meeting. > This delay should not have any impact on Studies 3 & 4, which are under consideration in the motion that is to be acted on April 28. > Best wishes, > > > Jonathan > > >

1 0