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