Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
Alan, I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended fixes, I don't think the new studies will help. -Garth
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:59 am To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Not wanting to splash cold water on this effort, but I need to point out that at the direction of the Board and with significant input from the GAC and parts of the GNSO, we have started the (slow?) process of doing a number of studies regarding whois. We are not likely to see formal action on any of the traditional whois-related issues until at least some of those studies are done. Please note that I am not advocating doing nothing, just telling you how I am reading the tea-leaves. Alan At 15/09/2009 10:43 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
Great. So how do we get support for this?
We discuss it and endorse it (or some modified version of it) as a NARALO position (together of a detailed account of how the status quo damages the public good).
At that point we submit it to ALAC, which will then do one of three things:
1) Endorse it as-is 2) Endorse it after ALAC modifications 3) Choose not to endorse it, or to not deal with it.
If ALAC chooses (2) or (3) we can choose to submit this request ourselves as a NARALO statement. We may also find that we may be able to attract support for this within the business and non commercial constituencies of GNSO.
I have indicated to the ALAC Chair our interest in this issue, an she has responded that ALAC and other regions share our concerns. It is possible that our initiative may achieve global support, which will make ICANN rejection of it more difficult.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended fixes, I don't think the new studies will help.
That's fine, but we have to make that case clear in our position. We need to put forward -- with proof and compelling logic -- that a) the status quo is dangerous b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the solution c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist. - Evan
At 15/09/2009 11:37 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended fixes, I don't think the new studies will help.
That's fine, but we have to make that case clear in our position.
We need to put forward -- with proof and compelling logic -- that
a) the status quo is dangerous
b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the solution
c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist.
- Evan
Just remember that you will be preaching to a crowd of people, some of whom have invested MANY YEARS in this debate, far more than you or I, and are very reluctant to embark on another go without being armed with some data that will stop those blocking progress from doing it again. The views being sited here are not unique. The NCUC and I think the Registrars refused to prioritize the whois studies on the theory that it is all just a waste of time. But the GAC was pretty insistent, and ultimately they won this round. Alan
Alan, these studies are taking way to long to get done. The WHOIS Accuracy Study was first announced by ICANN Staff on 21 December 2007 -- see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21dec07.htm#I -- and it still isn't complete. If we have to put all policy development on hold while these studies are in process, then we might as well hang it up for the next two years (if not more). Gazing into the tea leaves, do you believe that "new" GNSO will be willing to undertake a policy development initiative regarding WHOIS immediately after Seoul, or will we be mired within studies-land forever? --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [offlist] Domain-name abuse proliferates To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>, "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 12:27 PM At 15/09/2009 11:37 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended fixes, I don't think the new studies will help.
That's fine, but we have to make that case clear in our position.
We need to put forward -- with proof and compelling logic -- that
a) the status quo is dangerous
b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the solution
c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist.
- Evan
Just remember that you will be preaching to a crowd of people, some of whom have invested MANY YEARS in this debate, far more than you or I, and are very reluctant to embark on another go without being armed with some data that will stop those blocking progress from doing it again.
The views being sited here are not unique. The NCUC and I think the Registrars refused to prioritize the whois studies on the theory that it is all just a waste of time. But the GAC was pretty insistent, and ultimately they won this round.
Alan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
My tea leaves do not have that level of clarity. I think that it is a discussion worth having in a number of private venues to see if there is sufficient interest (and belief in a viable outcome as opposed to another stale-mate). aLAN At 15/09/2009 01:51 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan, these studies are taking way to long to get done.
The WHOIS Accuracy Study was first announced by ICANN Staff on 21 December 2007 -- see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21dec07.htm#I -- and it still isn't complete.
If we have to put all policy development on hold while these studies are in process, then we might as well hang it up for the next two years (if not more).
Gazing into the tea leaves, do you believe that "new" GNSO will be willing to undertake a policy development initiative regarding WHOIS immediately after Seoul, or will we be mired within studies-land forever?
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen at KnujOn