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
Thank you very much Liz. Note that considerable time is allotted to this on the agenda for 1 April so I encourage everyone to review the report in advance. We have a very short window of time in which we need to provide guidance with regard to what funds we would like budgeted for FY11. Chuck ________________________________ 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
Liz, After reviewing the report, I have a few comments. Please note the possible time sensitive action item under 3 below. "3. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies " The following points from the analysis make me wonder whether these studies are worth the investment: * 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. " Is it possible to ask the bidders, or possibly just the preferred one, to elaborate on "how "significance" might be assessed"? And could this be asked prior to our 1 April Council meeting? This could be critical information in making a decision regarding whether to purse these studies or not. If we are unable to prove or disprove the hypothesis, it might not make sense to spend $149,000. "4. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Registrant Identification Study " Based on Staff analysis, it seems like this study might be worth doing. The challenge it appears would be to choose between the two top bidders and their different methodologies. "5. Preliminary staff Analysis of WHOIS Abuse and Reveal Studies" It appears that it is too early to make any decisions on these studies, but we may need to at least decide whether we think any funds should be set aside in the FY11 budget for further work and possibly doing one of them. Chuck ________________________________ 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
Chuck and all, please see my responses below. Please let me know if you have any more questions or would like more information. Thanks, Liz From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:45 PM To: Liz Gasster; GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Importance: High Liz, After reviewing the report, I have a few comments. Please note the possible time sensitive action item under 3 below. "3. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies " The following points from the analysis make me wonder whether these studies are worth the investment: * 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. " Is it possible to ask the bidders, or possibly just the preferred one, to elaborate on "how "significance" might be assessed"? And could this be asked prior to our 1 April Council meeting? This could be critical information in making a decision regarding whether to purse these studies or not. If we are unable to prove or disprove the hypothesis, it might not make sense to spend $149,000. LG - The Council should understand that the issue of how significance might be assessed is one that remains even after several bidders and numerous subject matter experts pored through this study for months, and so far no one has yet found a good answer for. Based on my work to-date, my view is ICANN and the bidder would probably need to invest more than a day or two discussing these concerns and proposed methods to arrive at workable solutions for what (after months of discussion) are still unresolved challenges. I believe that if the Council wants to pursue this study and recognizing this concern, the next step would be for staff to ask the bidder to address this concern before awarding a contract. "4. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Registrant Identification Study " Based on Staff analysis, it seems like this study might be worth doing. The challenge it appears would be to choose between the two top bidders and their different methodologies. LG - We would not look to the Council to choose between the bidders or methodologies, that is something staff would work out once the decision is made to pursue this study. My point in making that statement was simply to say that there were credible options presented by two bidders, which is useful in confirming the feasibility of such a study. "5. Preliminary staff Analysis of WHOIS Abuse and Reveal Studies" It appears that it is too early to make any decisions on these studies, but we may need to at least decide whether we think any funds should be set aside in the FY11 budget for further work and possibly doing one of them. LG - Agree that it is too early. Information on the proxy and privacy "abuse" study might be available in July or August (I have not released an RFP yet). We are still not sure about the viability of a privacy/proxy "reveal" study. If the Council thinks it is likely to find the proxy/privacy abuse study to also be of a high priority, then asking for a set aside for that study might make sense. Given current budget constraints and the cost of the first two studies, it may also make sense to look to the FY 2012 budget. Chuck ________________________________ 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#<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
Thanks Liz. Very helpful. Chuck ________________________________ From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:22 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Chuck and all, please see my responses below. Please let me know if you have any more questions or would like more information. Thanks, Liz From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:45 PM To: Liz Gasster; GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Importance: High Liz, After reviewing the report, I have a few comments. Please note the possible time sensitive action item under 3 below. "3. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies " The following points from the analysis make me wonder whether these studies are worth the investment: * 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. " Is it possible to ask the bidders, or possibly just the preferred one, to elaborate on "how "significance" might be assessed"? And could this be asked prior to our 1 April Council meeting? This could be critical information in making a decision regarding whether to purse these studies or not. If we are unable to prove or disprove the hypothesis, it might not make sense to spend $149,000. LG - The Council should understand that the issue of how significance might be assessed is one that remains even after several bidders and numerous subject matter experts pored through this study for months, and so far no one has yet found a good answer for. Based on my work to-date, my view is ICANN and the bidder would probably need to invest more than a day or two discussing these concerns and proposed methods to arrive at workable solutions for what (after months of discussion) are still unresolved challenges. I believe that if the Council wants to pursue this study and recognizing this concern, the next step would be for staff to ask the bidder to address this concern before awarding a contract. "4. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Registrant Identification Study " Based on Staff analysis, it seems like this study might be worth doing. The challenge it appears would be to choose between the two top bidders and their different methodologies. LG - We would not look to the Council to choose between the bidders or methodologies, that is something staff would work out once the decision is made to pursue this study. My point in making that statement was simply to say that there were credible options presented by two bidders, which is useful in confirming the feasibility of such a study. "5. Preliminary staff Analysis of WHOIS Abuse and Reveal Studies" It appears that it is too early to make any decisions on these studies, but we may need to at least decide whether we think any funds should be set aside in the FY11 budget for further work and possibly doing one of them. LG - Agree that it is too early. Information on the proxy and privacy "abuse" study might be available in July or August (I have not released an RFP yet). We are still not sure about the viability of a privacy/proxy "reveal" study. If the Council thinks it is likely to find the proxy/privacy abuse study to also be of a high priority, then asking for a set aside for that study might make sense. Given current budget constraints and the cost of the first two studies, it may also make sense to look to the FY 2012 budget. Chuck ________________________________ 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# <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
Liz, Many thanks for sending through the initial staff report. I noticed one particular line in the report that I wanted to clarify. Under the Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies section [Staff recommendations about Misuse Studies, based on RFP responses], the following is stated: "Every bidder expressed a strong desire to tie WHOIS queries directly to harmful acts." I checked back on the ToR and it appears (please correct me if I am wrong) that the intent was to prove or disprove the following hypothesis: 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. Perhaps it is just the way that the report is worded but do you think that the bidders are open from the outset to either proving or disproving the hypothesis? It did not read that way and seems as if assumptions are already being made (which may of course be correct, but study and analysis should bring about that result). Kind regards, Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: 23 March 2010 23:47 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# <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
Hi Caroline, Thanks so much for your interest in the studies! I think I understand your question, and I think the problem or concern is related to my use of the term "desire". What I mean to say is that the researchers all conveyed that they thought it was important in order to prove or disprove the hypothesis to try to find (or determine the absence of) a specific link between publicly-displayed information related to a specific domain name and subsequent misuse of the registration data for that domain name. I think that goes to the crux of the question raised in the hypothesis and was not intend to convey that they were partial to any particular outcome. In retrospect I think I could have used a better word, but the important point I was trying to make with that "lead-in" is while the researchers demonstrated that they grasped the optimal goal of the study (to examine the queries that lead to harmful acts), the methodologies they proposed might not yield an unequivocal result and at best might yield only a "loose correlation" regarding the extent to which various anti-harvesting measures result in reductions of harmful acts. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you would like further clarification. Best, Liz From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:33 AM To: Liz Gasster; GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Liz, Many thanks for sending through the initial staff report. I noticed one particular line in the report that I wanted to clarify. Under the Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies section [Staff recommendations about Misuse Studies, based on RFP responses], the following is stated: "Every bidder expressed a strong desire to tie WHOIS queries directly to harmful acts." I checked back on the ToR and it appears (please correct me if I am wrong) that the intent was to prove or disprove the following hypothesis: 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. Perhaps it is just the way that the report is worded but do you think that the bidders are open from the outset to either proving or disproving the hypothesis? It did not read that way and seems as if assumptions are already being made (which may of course be correct, but study and analysis should bring about that result). Kind regards, Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: 23 March 2010 23:47 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#<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
participants (3)
-
Caroline Greer -
Gomes, Chuck -
Liz Gasster