Re: [council] Whois Studies

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to you both.

Stéphane



Le 25 avr. 2011 à 15:00, <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Yes, friendly.
>  
> Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
> American Red Cross
> 
> Office of the General Counsel  
> 2025 E Street, NW 
> Washington, D.C. 20006 
> Phone: (202) 303-5356 
> Fax: (202) 303-0143 
> HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:41 PM
> To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Whois Studies
>  
> Yes, friendly
> 
> Berard
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] Whois Studies
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Date: Thu, April 21, 2011 1:28 am
> > To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" 
> > 
> > John, Debbie, do you consider these friendly?
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Le 20 avr. 2011 à 21:09, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :
> > All,
> >  
> > Based on the rationalisation outlined below, I would like to propose that 
> > Council further defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification 
> > Study i.e. that the motion be amended as follows:
> >  
> > �Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification Study 
> > until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions in 
> > that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.�
> >  
> > The rationale for further delay is that the small working group of 
> > volunteers has met twice recently to discuss the Whois Study #2, the WHOIS 
> > Registrant Identification Study.  The intention was to have a revised Study 
> > 2 proposal for Council consideration in the 28 April meeting.  They 
> > anticipated making revisions to reduce presumptively negative terminology 
> > while retaining the original study design to prove/disprove a hypothesis 
> > that natural persons were using privacy/proxy while also engaging in 
> > commercial activities.  But the discussion revealed more extensive 
> > questions about study 2:
> > ·         First, they believe that the present Study 2 proposal could be 
> > easily amended to answer all four registrant identification questions posed 
> > by the GAC in their April-2008 recommendations.
> > ·         Second, they believe that the objective and results of Study 2 
> > can be improved to generate broader and deeper analysis that would provide 
> > needed context for GNSO and ICANN in future work on these issues. 
> > Their goal will be to submit Study 2 recommendations to the Council not 
> > later than 1 June, in time for the 9 June Council meeting. 
> > This delay should not have any impact on Studies 3 & 4, which are under 
> > consideration in the motion that is to be acted on April 28.  
> > Best wishes,
> >  
> >  
> > Jonathan
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>