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" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Date: Wed, April 20, 2011 2:09 pm To: <council@gnso.icann.org>
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