RE: [council] WHOIS study group report attached

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Liz.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 7:51 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: 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