• Referring to the recommended proposal, ". . even that proposal did not address key challenges that could diminish the WHOIS policy contributions afforded by this study – notably, determining the "significance" of misuse and proving a causal relationship between misuse reduction and WHOIS anti-harvesting measures. If ICANN and GNSO elect to pursue this study, these concerns should be discussed with the bidder before a contract is awarded. "
• ". . it is not clear that researchers can quantitatively measure or qualitatively assess whether measured misuse is "significant." The ToR suggested surveying registrants about incident impact (severity), but no bidder elaborated on this study goal or indicated how "significance" might be assessed. Simply counting harmful acts without putting them into some kind of perspective cannot prove the study's hypothesis and may thus do little to inform policy. "

---

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:47 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Cc: Steve Sheng
Subject: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion

All,

 

Attached please find staff’s initial report on WHOIS studies as requested by the Council on 4 March 2009.  I will provide an overview of this report at the Council’s upcoming 1 April meeting, and I look forward to your comments and input.  My report will also be posted here shortly. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion#   I will also be posting my presentation slides by the end of this week.  I’d also like to make the following points:

 

1.       I want to recognize that this effort has been underway for quite some time, and while I have provided many updates along the way, I understand that the background and context may be new to Council members who joined the GNSO following the discussions that led to initiation of this work.  I would be glad to add additional background or detail as requested.  There was a significant body of work that the Council and community engaged in that led up to the decision in March 2009 to pursue costs and feasibility for the specific study areas selected.  There were also other studies initially proposed by members of the community and by the GAC.  Those described in my report were selected by the Council for staff to pursue.

2.       The Policy staff is also releasing a first draft later this month of an additional “study” that was requested by the GNSO Council in May 2009.  This “study” is more accurately described as a compilation or synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements,  that includes known deficiencies in the current service and “any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past”. As requested in the resolution initiating this work, when Staff releases the report, we will be consulting with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO on this draft, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this upcoming report. 

3.       Regarding both reports, staff has tried to be responsive to the expectations of the GNSO in initiating the requests.  If more work is needed or you have something further in mind, please let us know.  We consider both to be working documents that can be updated or refined upon community review. 

4.       There are many important details to consider, but ultimately the Council will want to consider whether to recommend funding for WHOIS studies in the FY 2011 budget.  WHOIS studies have been noted as a potential future expense for some time, but the analysis I’ve just completed provides much-needed detail on specific costs to anticipate for the WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification studies. 

 

At the time this work was initiated, there were differing views about whether / which studies should be undertaken.  Hopefully the information provided will be useful to the Council in considering next steps.  I might also suggest that this information be provided to the GAC given its extensive previous recommendations for further study of WHOIS.  Staff can forward the report or the Council may certainly do so.

 

Again, we look forward to your comments and input! 

 

Thanks, Liz