ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] WHOIS study group report attached


Chuck and all,

I understand your point about "self-contained" reports and will keep that in 
mind in the future. I worry about the bulkiness of these documents as well as 
ease of reference but your point is well-taken, especially with a report of 
this nature.  Here is the reference guide in Word format that you can refer 
back to.  If this is still awkward, let me know and I'll come up with an easier 
format.  There are multiple studies under consideration for each of 7 
categories.  In the final report we also included an 8th category which lists a 
few studies that the GAC recommended that had not previously been raised by 
others.  The numbers in the "tally" annex do relate to the 7 original 
categories.

Everyone was asked to rank the study categories in priority order.  The RyC 
offered a more nuanced position and the tally attempts to reflect the high 
points of that position.  I probably should also have included their statement 
in full, it is attached here for the group's reference.

Thanks so much for the input and I am happy to answer any other questions.

Liz

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:44 PM
To: Liz Gasster; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] WHOIS study group report attached

Thanks for this report Liz.  It was helpful for me to read the rationale 
provided by each side, but I found it difficult without going to other 
documents to readily understand study categories and study numbers.  I have a 
few questions and comments in that regard.

Am I correct in concluding that there are multiple studies under consideration 
for each category?  If that is the case, it would be helpful to have the 
individual studies identified in the report, possibly in an Annex.  That would 
also have made it easier to figure out what studies were being referenced when 
the study # was given.  It is my opinion that reports like this should be as 
self-contained as possible without making them too bulky; otherwise, it becomes 
extremely time consuming for those who did not directly participate to read and 
understand the material.

Am I correct that the numbers in the table in Annex 1 refer to priorities 1-7 
and that those who provided the priorities ranked the seven categories?  Was 
everyone asked to do the same thing in this regard?  I note that the RyC 
response is very different from the rest.and tough to correlate with the other 
data.

The purpose of my questions and comments are two-fold: 1) to make sure I 
understand the report; 2) to possibly identify ways that reports like this 
could be improved in the future.

Chuck



________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:53 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] WHOIS study group report attached
Council members:

Attached please find the final report of the WHOIS study group, which was 
convened by the Council on 27 March to examine the study recommendations 
suggested by the public (and later augmented with study suggestions recommended 
by the Government Advisory Committee), and to make a recommendation to the 
Council.

Also, in the course of discussions on further studies of WHOIS, study 
participants asked for more information on IRIS and specifically more 
information about what it would take to implement IRIS from both a technical 
and policy perspective.  Steve Crocker has provided an email response (also 
attached), and has also offered to participate in a Q & A or broader 
discussion, at which SSAC experts could have a dialogue with the GNSO Council 
and constituency representatives.  Staff would be happy to coordinate such a 
conversation at the Council's request.

The WHOIS study group would be glad to answer questions about the report and 
our deliberation process.

Thanks, Liz Gasster

Study group participants:


Jordi Iparraguirre

Ken Stubbs

David Maher

Steve Metalitz

Lee Eulgen

Steve DelBianco

Tony Harris

Tim Ruiz

Paul Stahura

James Bladel

Stéphane Van Gelder

Norbert Klein

Robin Gross

Danny Younger

Beau Brendler
Wendy Seltzer
Liz Gasster - staff

Attachment: WHOIS-study-suggestion-report- updated 10 May with GAC 2008.doc
Description: WHOIS-study-suggestion-report- updated 10 May with GAC 2008.doc

--- Begin Message ---
  • To: "gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-whois-study] Statement of Registries Constituency
  • From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:20:35 -0700
  • List-id: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: "owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx" <owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Thread-index: AcijavqBPVHrC6R2RBWuC91BCQRcqw==
  • Thread-topic: [gnso-whois-study] Statement of Registries Constituency
Atttached is a statement of the Registries Constituency on the need for further 
studies
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Ave, #102A
Reston, VA 20190  USA
(v) +1-312-876-8055
(f)  +1-312-876-7934
http://www.pir.org

<http://www.pir.org/>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal 
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If 
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by 
returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you 
for your cooperation.

Attachment: RyC Statement to WHOIS Working Group on the Need for Studies.doc
Description: RyC Statement to WHOIS Working Group on the Need for Studies.doc


--- End Message ---


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>