Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week. Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse. 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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/). Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> 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 feb08.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f eb08.pdf). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ). For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions). On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose." At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating: First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding: . the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and . the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data." The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. ( <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies. Resolved: Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en .pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf).
Mike I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion. If there is no second still, I second this motion. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week. Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse. 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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/). Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> 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 feb08.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f eb08.pdf). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ). For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions). On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose." At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating: First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding: . the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and . the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data." The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. ( <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies. Resolved: Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en .pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf).
Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses? I don't believe that's necessary or helpful. Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved, or the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study. Even the staff report still indicates "However, even that [superior] 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." Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"? I think that question remains at the GNSO level. I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution. Thanks, --Wendy On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
Mike
I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion. If there is no second still, I second this motion.
Take care
Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week.
Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> 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 feb08.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f eb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose."
At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:
First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:
. the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
. the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."
The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. ( <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en .pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf).
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:01 AM To: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses? I don't believe that's necessary or helpful.
Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved, or the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study.
Even the staff report still indicates "However, even that [superior] 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
bidder before a contract is awarded."
Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"? I think that question remains at the GNSO level.
I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution.
Thanks, --Wendy
Mike
I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion. If there is no second still, I second this motion.
Take care
Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by
Council at our meeting next week.
Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff
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 feb08.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion- report-25f eb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth- wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting Team determined
the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be
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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso- 23mar10-en. pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for
study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial
On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: the prepared that the the first purpose."
At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC
interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:
First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that
documented evidence base regarding:
. the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
. the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity
reiterated their provides a theft,
security costs and loss of data."
The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS
Wendy, Regarding the level of detail in the 'whereas' portions of motions, speaking strictly from my personal point of view, I think the detail provides background references that may or may not be useful depending on the person involved. If someone does not find it useful, it can be ignored. For anyone who does find it helpful, they can use the information to better understand the background of the motion. The detail may be of even more value to those not on the Council who have not been working the issues very closely like we as Councilors presumably have been. Chuck the policy
is
effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. ( <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments- 30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09- en.htm)
The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study,
described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection
as process
described in Annex of that same report. ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso- 23mar10-en .pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso- 23mar10-en. pdf).
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
Mike
I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion. If there is no second still, I second this motion.
Take care
Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week.
Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff
Hi Wendy, If you have specific changes to the text in mind, then we can consider as potential friendly amendments. As for the additional discussion that Staff calls for, Staff could/should have that discussion with the vendor as the contract is negotiated by Staff. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:01 AM To: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses? I don't believe that's necessary or helpful. Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved, or the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study. Even the staff report still indicates "However, even that [superior] 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." Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"? I think that question remains at the GNSO level. I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution. Thanks, --Wendy On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: 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
feb08.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f
eb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st
udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. (
pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose."
At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. their
interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:
First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:
. the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
. the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."
The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (
<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection
process
described in Annex of that same report. (
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en
.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
pdf).
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
On 07/14/2010 11:15 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Hi Wendy,
If you have specific changes to the text in mind, then we can consider as potential friendly amendments.
Thanks, Mike. Since I am against funding this study, I do not think my overall amendment would be friendly. (I think it remains possible that other WHOIS studies could be better designed and should be prioritized in funding.) I think the narrative history is interesting, but not something that requires a vote of the GNSO Council (and the necessary fact-checking that would precede such a vote). I'd move that to a separate information page.
As for the additional discussion that Staff calls for, Staff could/should have that discussion with the vendor as the contract is negotiated by Staff.
I think that is too much delegation. Since the validity and utility of the study will depend on the outcome of that discussion, I think GNSO should not approve until after these important elements have been clarified. --Wendy
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:01 AM To: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses? I don't believe that's necessary or helpful.
Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved, or the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study.
Even the staff report still indicates "However, even that [superior] 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."
Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"? I think that question remains at the GNSO level.
I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution.
Thanks, --Wendy
Mike
I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion. If there is no second still, I second this motion.
Take care
Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week.
Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff
On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: 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
feb08.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f
eb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st
udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. (
pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose."
At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. their
interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:
First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:
. the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
. the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."
The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (
<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection
process
described in Annex of that same report. (
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en
.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
pdf).
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
Wendy/All I also follow the ARIN PPML mailing list for my day job. The clip below is from today's discussions and whois issues are the big topic of the day there also but in their case because of the impeding exhaustion of IPv4 address space and a desire to recover unused/lost v4 address space. However the example gives you an idea of how big the problem appears to be, and given the source running the POC checks, it would seem that we would have a very reliable statistic by fall from their efforts for one part of the study. And there might be considerable synergy to be gained from our work running either in parallel or just behind them to harvest their results into our study. And there is an expected explosion of IP addressing with the full introduction of IPv6 so it could get a lot worse a lot faster. A few of the big ISPs and hardware vendors are expecting IPv6 based infrastructure to consume more 10 times the addresses of a similar v4 infrastructure since you can do a lot of things with v6 and that you can't with v4. To me, it's a really big deal. Take care Terry ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:02 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] How bad is it really? On Jul 12, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Keep in mind that Section 3.6.1 requires ARIN to publish a list of invalid POCS, so we should have in a year or two a list of subnets that are "ripe for mining" as they say.
Ted is right on target here, and we're proceeding with POC validation at an aggressive rate. (For more information, see <https://www.arin.net/resources/services/poc_validation.html>) We're presently sending out 7500 validation requests each week, and getting just over a 33% update rate on those requests. It's too early to draw conclusions, but there's obviously ample space which presently lacks a responsive contact. We'll provide a more detailed update on POC validation during the October PPML meeting. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:15 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse On 07/14/2010 11:15 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Hi Wendy,
If you have specific changes to the text in mind, then we can consider as potential friendly amendments.
Thanks, Mike. Since I am against funding this study, I do not think my overall amendment would be friendly. (I think it remains possible that other WHOIS studies could be better designed and should be prioritized in funding.) I think the narrative history is interesting, but not something that requires a vote of the GNSO Council (and the necessary fact-checking that would precede such a vote). I'd move that to a separate information page.
As for the additional discussion that Staff calls for, Staff could/should have that discussion with the vendor as the contract is negotiated by
Staff. I think that is too much delegation. Since the validity and utility of the study will depend on the outcome of that discussion, I think GNSO should not approve until after these important elements have been clarified. --Wendy
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On
Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:01 AM To: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses? I don't believe that's necessary or helpful.
Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved, or the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study.
Even the staff report still indicates "However, even that [superior] 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."
Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"? I think that question remains at the GNSO level.
I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution.
Thanks, --Wendy
Mike
I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion. If there is no second still, I second this motion.
Take care
Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week.
Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff
On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: 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
feb08.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f
eb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st
udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. (
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose."
At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:
First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:
. the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
. the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."
The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (
<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection
process
described in Annex of that same report. (
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en
.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
pdf).
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
Thanks Terry, I agree WHOIS is an important issue, and that getting real data would be helpful in understanding it. I don't believe that the proposed Misuse Study is well tailored to generating valid data (nor that this study would generate data helpful toward the questions ARIN is facing). --Wendy On 07/14/2010 06:10 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
Wendy/All
I also follow the ARIN PPML mailing list for my day job. The clip below is from today's discussions and whois issues are the big topic of the day there also but in their case because of the impeding exhaustion of IPv4 address space and a desire to recover unused/lost v4 address space.
However the example gives you an idea of how big the problem appears to be, and given the source running the POC checks, it would seem that we would have a very reliable statistic by fall from their efforts for one part of the study. And there might be considerable synergy to be gained from our work running either in parallel or just behind them to harvest their results into our study.
And there is an expected explosion of IP addressing with the full introduction of IPv6 so it could get a lot worse a lot faster. A few of the big ISPs and hardware vendors are expecting IPv6 based infrastructure to consume more 10 times the addresses of a similar v4 infrastructure since you can do a lot of things with v6 and that you can't with v4.
To me, it's a really big deal.
Take care Terry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:02 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] How bad is it really?
On Jul 12, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Keep in mind that Section 3.6.1 requires ARIN to publish a list of invalid POCS, so we should have in a year or two a list of subnets that are "ripe for mining" as they say.
Ted is right on target here, and we're proceeding with POC validation at an aggressive rate. (For more information, see <https://www.arin.net/resources/services/poc_validation.html>)
We're presently sending out 7500 validation requests each week, and getting just over a 33% update rate on those requests. It's too early to draw conclusions, but there's obviously ample space which presently lacks a responsive contact. We'll provide a more detailed update on POC validation during the October PPML meeting.
/John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:15 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
On 07/14/2010 11:15 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Hi Wendy,
If you have specific changes to the text in mind, then we can consider as potential friendly amendments.
Thanks, Mike. Since I am against funding this study, I do not think my overall amendment would be friendly. (I think it remains possible that other WHOIS studies could be better designed and should be prioritized in funding.) I think the narrative history is interesting, but not something that requires a vote of the GNSO Council (and the necessary fact-checking that would precede such a vote). I'd move that to a separate information page.
As for the additional discussion that Staff calls for, Staff could/should have that discussion with the vendor as the contract is negotiated by
Staff.
I think that is too much delegation. Since the validity and utility of the study will depend on the outcome of that discussion, I think GNSO should not approve until after these important elements have been clarified.
--Wendy
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On
Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:01 AM To: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses? I don't believe that's necessary or helpful.
Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved, or the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study.
Even the staff report still indicates "However, even that [superior] 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."
Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"? I think that question remains at the GNSO level.
I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution.
Thanks, --Wendy
Mike
I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion. If there is no second still, I second this motion.
Take care
Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week.
Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff
On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: 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
feb08.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f
eb08.pdf).
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st
udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. (
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose."
At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating:
First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding:
. the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and
. the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data."
The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (
<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies.
Resolved:
Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection
process
described in Annex of that same report. (
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en
.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
pdf).
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
Mike and all, I apologize that I did not catch this earlier, but I would like to suggest one change to the following language in Mike Rodenbaugh's motion below. The current text is: The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose." I propose replacement language that says: Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse - that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose. The language in Mike's motion is the hypothesis for one of the proposals included in the Misuse Terms of Reference (original study #1 for those who are following closely). The "final" hypothesis I am suggesting was included in the Misuse Terms of Reference, which "integrated" several Misuse study proposals and was adjusted to be sure the hypothesis was testable. It is also consistent with the Resolved clause below, because the 23 March report referenced includes the hypothesis language I suggest above. Please let me know if you have any questions about this suggestion. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week. Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse. 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 the details of these studies, 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-25f...). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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). This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_stu... ). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ). For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions). On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en....) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose." At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating: First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding: * the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and * the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data." The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. (http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies. Resolved: Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en....).
Mike I am fine with this language if you are. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:43 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse Mike and all, I apologize that I did not catch this earlier, but I would like to suggest one change to the following language in Mike Rodenbaugh's motion below. The current text is: The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose." I propose replacement language that says: Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse - that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose. The language in Mike's motion is the hypothesis for one of the proposals included in the Misuse Terms of Reference (original study #1 for those who are following closely). The "final" hypothesis I am suggesting was included in the Misuse Terms of Reference, which "integrated" several Misuse study proposals and was adjusted to be sure the hypothesis was testable. It is also consistent with the Resolved clause below, because the 23 March report referenced includes the hypothesis language I suggest above. Please let me know if you have any questions about this suggestion. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the Council at our meeting next week. Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse. 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/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/). Before defining the details of these studies, 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/> 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 feb08.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f eb08.pdf). On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council ( <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> 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 another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review 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> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf). This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ). On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ). For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received. The Drafting 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 at <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions). On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost estimates for Whois Studies. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the first study, regarding WHOIS Misuse. The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3 originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2. The hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose." At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated their interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included these requests for further studies of WHOIS ( <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), stating: First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC WHOIS Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a documented evidence base regarding: . the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using WHOIS data for; and . the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused by each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data." The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of WHOIS policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The first such review must be organized by 30-Sep-2010. ( <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS studies. Resolved: Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en .pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en. pdf).
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Liz Gasster -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Terry L Davis, P.E. -
Wendy Seltzer