Proposed Draft for Budget Request
Dear Lynn, Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim and Susan for all of the work on it. It is an excellent and important step forward. That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can discuss this issue this evening. What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN. What that seems to imply is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below] I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of reasons, including: 1) The Board has send the general “consumer” issue of the AoC to the GNSO Council for definition and deliberation. With that process still in progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in in a broad manner. This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO. 2) I fear that reaching out to a group with no awareness of Internet processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain name data otherwise. I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow “consumer” definitions we put out for public comment. 3) The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review Team making policy, rather than reflecting it. Let me explain the objection I think might be raised. If we survey everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and verification tool for all websites. The purpose of Whois, however, remains an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an “operational point of contact” replacing all existing Whois data. That was a process that took place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final vote. Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow “purpose” of the Whois – an operational point of contact close to the “technical point of contact” which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as shared by early DARPA users). The larger vision of Whois’ use and purpose, as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing it. That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important – and provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois system and use it -- I think we are well within the scope of the AoC (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes. That’s still massive group! Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look forward to talking more tonight. All the best, Kathy *”We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust the Internet and specifically ICANN’s role in establishing that trust.” BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org> | Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org> | .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> | Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request Dear All, Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a budget request to submit to the ICANN Board. The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft. Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement and move forward. Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan which provides additional reinforcement for the proposed external study. Best regards, Lynn
Dear Team members: For the benefit of those Team members who might not be aware of actions referenced in Kathy's email, I've provided some additional information on point #1 below 1) The Board has send the general “consumer” issue of the AoC to the
GNSO Council for definition and deliberation. With that process still in progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in in a broad manner. This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.
The Board actually was focusing on work related to the 4th AoC review on new gTLDs and their impact on consumer choice, competition, etc. in asking for input from the GNSO and other groups. They took the following action, which certainly may have implications for Whois: Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Whereas, the area of consumer choice, competition and innovation is one of the strategic areas for ICANN in the 2010 to 2013 strategy plan < http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-19feb10-en.p...> [PDF, 491 KB]. Whereas, ICANN has committed to promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the Affirmation of Commitments < http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
.
Whereas, if and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN has committed to organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. Resolved (2010.12.10.30), the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011. Also, the Board has indicated its commitment to supporting the independence of the AoC review teams and declined to dictate scope or direction to the ATRT. I would expecte the same for the Whois review, but I encourage the Team to contact the Board if you have any questions on this. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel@icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct
Dear All: My apologies that I was not able to make the call. After reviewing Kathy's lengthy email explaining her worries about the "scope" of the focus group project, I think I have to agree with Kathy that we should limit it to a degree. However, I would be hesitant to limit only to people who have a domain name or who are hoping to register one. I would suggest we broaden that a little by saying that it would include any person: 1. Who has a domain name 2. Who has plans to get one 3. Who has/is thinking about getting one sometime in the future I agree there should be some kind of anchor to the DNS, how ever tenuous it may be. Otherwise, we may as well ask anyone from a new born to a great-great-parent. Nevertheless, I do think we should include the fringe of people who are thinking about getting a domain name or who have toyed with the idea or think it might be interesting etc and NOT just the one's who are planning to get one. I hope the distinction between "planning" vs "thinking" is clear. In essence, I would like to capture the people who make up the top right third of the adoption curve of a new technology, i.e., the late adopters and stragglers... Not sure if all of this makes sense. I am having a flue right now and have a fever so I may have written gibberish in my fever trance... Kim __________________________________ kim@vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." On 27 Apr 2011, at 15:30, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Dear Lynn, Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim and Susan for all of the work on it. It is an excellent and important step forward.
That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can discuss this issue this evening.
What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN. What that seems to imply is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below]
I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of reasons, including: 1) The Board has send the general “consumer” issue of the AoC to the GNSO Council for definition and deliberation. With that process still in progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in in a broad manner. This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.
2) I fear that reaching out to a group with no awareness of Internet processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain name data otherwise. I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow “consumer” definitions we put out for public comment.
3) The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review Team making policy, rather than reflecting it. Let me explain the objection I think might be raised. If we survey everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and verification tool for all websites. The purpose of Whois, however, remains an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an “operational point of contact” replacing all existing Whois data. That was a process that took place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final vote.
Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow “purpose” of the Whois – an operational point of contact close to the “technical point of contact” which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as shared by early DARPA users). The larger vision of Whois’ use and purpose, as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing it.
That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important – and provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois system and use it -- I think we are well within the scope of the AoC (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes.
That’s still massive group! Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look forward to talking more tonight.
All the best, Kathy
*”We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust the Internet and specifically ICANN’s role in establishing that trust.”BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT
Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846| www.pir.org |
Find us on Facebook | .ORG Blog | Flickr | YouTube | Twitter |
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request
Dear All, Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a budget request to submit to the ICANN Board.
The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft. Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement and move forward.
Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan which provides additional reinforcement for the proposed external study.
Best regards, Lynn
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Dear Kim, Kathy, On the other side, broaden it so much makes us think who are *not* eligible in "thinking about getting one". I think any individual should be considered a potential owner - virtually anybody. My 2 cents, Omar 2011/4/28 Kim G. von Arx <kim@vonarx.ca>:
Dear All: My apologies that I was not able to make the call. After reviewing Kathy's lengthy email explaining her worries about the "scope" of the focus group project, I think I have to agree with Kathy that we should limit it to a degree. However, I would be hesitant to limit only to people who have a domain name or who are hoping to register one. I would suggest we broaden that a little by saying that it would include any person: 1. Who has a domain name 2. Who has plans to get one 3. Who has/is thinking about getting one sometime in the future I agree there should be some kind of anchor to the DNS, how ever tenuous it may be. Otherwise, we may as well ask anyone from a new born to a great-great-parent. Nevertheless, I do think we should include the fringe of people who are thinking about getting a domain name or who have toyed with the idea or think it might be interesting etc and NOT just the one's who are planning to get one. I hope the distinction between "planning" vs "thinking" is clear. In essence, I would like to capture the people who make up the top right third of the adoption curve of a new technology, i.e., the late adopters and stragglers... Not sure if all of this makes sense. I am having a flue right now and have a fever so I may have written gibberish in my fever trance... Kim
__________________________________ kim@vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."
On 27 Apr 2011, at 15:30, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Dear Lynn, Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim and Susan for all of the work on it. It is an excellent and important step forward.
That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can discuss this issue this evening.
What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN. What that seems to imply is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below]
I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of reasons, including: 1) The Board has send the general “consumer” issue of the AoC to the GNSO Council for definition and deliberation. With that process still in progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in in a broad manner. This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.
2) I fear that reaching out to a group with no awareness of Internet processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain name data otherwise. I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow “consumer” definitions we put out for public comment.
3) The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review Team making policy, rather than reflecting it. Let me explain the objection I think might be raised. If we survey everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and verification tool for all websites. The purpose of Whois, however, remains an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an “operational point of contact” replacing all existing Whois data. That was a process that took place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final vote.
Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow “purpose” of the Whois – an operational point of contact close to the “technical point of contact” which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as shared by early DARPA users). The larger vision of Whois’ use and purpose, as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing it.
That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important – and provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois system and use it -- I think we are well within the scope of the AoC (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes.
That’s still massive group! Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look forward to talking more tonight.
All the best, Kathy
*”We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust the Internet and specifically ICANN’s role in establishing that trust.”BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT
Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846| www.pir.org |
Find us on Facebook | .ORG Blog | Flickr | YouTube | Twitter |
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request
Dear All, Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a budget request to submit to the ICANN Board.
The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft. Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement and move forward.
Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan which provides additional reinforcement for the proposed external study.
Best regards, Lynn
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
participants (5)
-
Denise Michel -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kim G. von Arx -
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Omar Kaminski