All, I’m sorry I was unable to attend the last Council call when WHOIS studies were discussed, though I am glad that Lisa Phifer was available to provide an overview and answer questions. The purpose of this email is to provide easy reference to four of the key documents that I think are of particular utility as you talk further about which studies to recommend: 1. The attached chart – this is the easiest “snapshot view” of the study options pending at this time. 2. The analysis/report that staff did on the first two study areas once the responses to the first two RFPs were received and analyzed. I hope you will review in particular some of the benefits and constraints that we think are relevant to each study. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.... 3. In considering which studies should be done, it may be helpful to consider how the results of each proposed study might be useful in informing future policy making, and to discuss the kinds of policy options that study results might shed light on. Some may view this is premature in the absence of the study results, but I think it could help guide this decision making (about which studies to do) to ensure that results are actually useful and “advance the debate”. Back in April, when I shared the analysis I describe in #2 above, the Council also requested that I go back and identify the WHOIS policy issues that each proposed study is intended to inform. Recognizing that there is a long history of debate, Council members also wanted to understand better the nature of the concerns and viewpoints about these studies that have been expressed to-date. The following is my response to that request. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-follow-up-discussion-05apr10-en.pdf Most of the content was extracted from the original study proposals themselves, since study proposers were asked to specifically state the “utility” of each study being proposed. That means that the ideas stated are often in the words of the study proponents and may not be considered “neutral”, something to be aware of as you review the information. In the 5 April document I also offer some thoughts and insights shared by others on the potential policy “relevance” of other pending WHOIS studies. As I noted at the time, when I assembled this list I noticed that the list includes many things we might learn; it is less expansive on precisely how policies might change. Note also that that these are not my views or staff views. I tried to extract ideas that have been stated already – you may find this a useful way to approach discussion. It may also spur additional thought about the merits or limitations of various study proposals which I would urge you to share with other Council members and staff. Please note also that the terms of reference for the pending RFP on a WHOIS Proxy/Privacy “Abuse” study can be found here. This provides further detail on the parameters envisioned for that study which you may also find relevant. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm Hopefully these references will be useful for your current deliberations. Please let me know also if you would like further information. Staff is also available to participate on stakeholder group and constituency calls to answer questions or provide further detail. Best, Liz