Chuck and
all,
I understand your point about
“self-contained” reports and will keep that in mind in the future. I worry
about the bulkiness of these documents as well as ease of reference but your
point is well-taken, especially with a report of this nature. Here is
the reference guide in Word format that you can refer back to. If this
is still awkward, let me know and I’ll come up with an easier format.
There are multiple studies under consideration for each of 7 categories.
In the final report we also included an 8th category which lists a
few studies that the GAC recommended that had not previously been raised by
others. The numbers in the “tally” annex do relate to the 7 original
categories.
Everyone was asked to rank the
study categories in priority order. The RyC offered a more nuanced
position and the tally attempts to reflect the high points of that
position. I probably should also have included their statement in full,
it is attached here for the group’s reference.
Thanks so much for the input
and I am happy to answer any other questions.
Liz
From: Gomes, Chuck
[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:44
PM
To: Liz Gasster; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE:
[council] WHOIS study group report attached
Thanks
for this report Liz. It was helpful for me to read the rationale
provided by each side, but I found it difficult without going to other
documents to readily understand study categories and study numbers.
I have a few questions and comments in that regard.
Am I
correct in concluding that there are multiple studies under consideration for
each category? If that is the case, it would be helpful to have the
individual studies identified in the report, possibly in an Annex. That
would also have made it easier to figure out what studies were being
referenced when the study # was given. It is my opinion that reports
like this should be as self-contained as possible without making them too
bulky; otherwise, it becomes extremely time consuming for those who did
not directly participate to read and understand the material.
Am I
correct that the numbers in the table in Annex 1 refer to priorities 1-7 and
that those who provided the priorities ranked the seven categories? Was
everyone asked to do the same thing in this regard? I note that the RyC
response is very different from the rest.and tough to correlate with the other
data.
The
purpose of my questions and comments are two-fold: 1) to make sure I
understand the report; 2) to possibly identify ways that reports like this
could be improved in the future.
Chuck
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:53
PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] WHOIS
study group report attached
Council members:
Attached please find the final report of the WHOIS study
group, which was convened by the Council on 27 March to examine the study
recommendations suggested by the public (and later augmented with study
suggestions recommended by the Government Advisory Committee), and to make a
recommendation to the Council.
Also, in the course of discussions on further studies of
WHOIS, study participants asked for more information on IRIS and
specifically more information about what it would take to implement IRIS
from both a technical and policy perspective. Steve Crocker has
provided an email response (also attached), and has also offered to
participate in a Q & A or broader discussion, at which SSAC experts
could have a dialogue with the GNSO Council and constituency
representatives. Staff would be happy to coordinate such a
conversation at the Council’s request.
The WHOIS study group would be glad to answer questions
about the report and our deliberation process.
Thanks, Liz Gasster
Study group participants:
Jordi
Iparraguirre
Ken Stubbs
David Maher
Steve
Metalitz
Lee Eulgen
Steve DelBianco
Tony Harris
Tim Ruiz
Paul Stahura
James Bladel
Stéphane Van
Gelder
Norbert Klein
Robin Gross
Danny
Younger
Beau
Brendler
Wendy Seltzer
Liz Gasster - staff