Re: [council] Whois Studies

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Thanks for the explanation Jonathan.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:10:45 
To: 'Tim Ruiz'<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Whois Studies

Hi Tim,

 

Looking back on the issues in preparation for today’s call, I realise I didn’t 
reposing to this point.  Apologies.

 

As I understand it, the situation is likely to pan out as follows:

 

1.       The small group looking into the WHOIS Studies will develop a 
recommendation for Study 2 improvements and present those to the Council.  This 
could consist of one recommendation or a couple of alternative approaches to 
give the Council some options.  This will become clearer in the next few weeks 
as they dig a little deeper.

2.       Staff will evaluate what the impact may be on the bids that have 
already been received and give their opinion to the Council regarding whether 
or not it will be necessary  to go back to the bidders to reassess their 
estimates.

3.       The Council will do its due diligence and make a decision whether or 
not to approve the study with any modifications.

4.       If Council approves a modified study 2, then Staff will interact with 
the bidders to evaluate the impact of the changes and take necessary steps to 
determine any cost to time estimates and report that information to the Council 
in case any of the estimates change.

 

I trust that’s a helpful update and useful ahead of the GNSO meeting and 
apologies again for the delay in responding.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

Jonathan

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: 20 April 2011 21:30
To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Whois Studies

 

Won't the researchers who responded to the RFP need to review the
changes and comment on their cost and feasibility? Will June 1 allow
enough time for that?

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Whois Studies
> From: "Jonathan Robinson" 
> Date: Wed, April 20, 2011 2:09 pm
> To: 
> 
> FW: Whois StudiesAll,
>  
> 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
>  
> 
>