RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion

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

Liz,
 
After reviewing the report, I have a few comments.  Please note the
possible time sensitive action item under 3 below.
 
"3. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies "
 
The following points from the analysis make me wonder whether these
studies are worth the investment:

*       
        Referring to the recommended proposal, ". . even that proposal
did not address key challenges that could diminish the WHOIS policy
contributions afforded by this study - notably, determining the
"significance" of misuse and proving a causal relationship between
misuse reduction and WHOIS anti-harvesting measures. If ICANN and GNSO
elect to pursue this study, these concerns should be discussed with the
bidder before a contract is awarded. "
*       
        ". . it is not clear that researchers can quantitatively measure
or qualitatively assess whether measured misuse is "significant." The
ToR suggested surveying registrants about incident impact (severity),
but no bidder elaborated on this study goal or indicated how
"significance" might be assessed. Simply counting harmful acts without
putting them into some kind of perspective cannot prove the study's
hypothesis and may thus do little to inform policy. "

Is it possible to ask the bidders, or possibly just the preferred one,
to elaborate on "how "significance" might be assessed"?  And could this
be asked prior to our 1 April Council meeting?  This could be critical
information in making a decision regarding whether to purse these
studies or not.  
 
If we are unable to prove or disprove the hypothesis, it might not make
sense to spend $149,000.
 
"4. Staff Analysis of WHOIS Registrant Identification Study "
 
Based on Staff analysis, it seems like this study might be worth doing.
The challenge it appears would be to choose between the two top bidders
and their different methodologies.
 
"5. Preliminary staff Analysis of WHOIS Abuse and Reveal Studies"
 
It appears that it is too early to make any decisions on these studies,
but we may need to at least decide whether we think any funds should be
set aside in the FY11 budget for further work and possibly doing one of
them.
 
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
        Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:47 PM
        To: GNSO Council List
        Cc: Steve Sheng
        Subject: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS
studies attached for your review and discussion
        
        

        All,

         

        Attached please find staff's initial report on WHOIS studies as
requested by the Council on 4 March 2009.  I will provide an overview of
this report at the Council's upcoming 1 April meeting, and I look
forward to your comments and input.  My report will also be posted here
shortly. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion#
I will also be posting my presentation slides by the end of this week.
I'd also like to make the following points:

         

        1.       I want to recognize that this effort has been underway
for quite some time, and while I have provided many updates along the
way, I understand that the background and context may be new to Council
members who joined the GNSO following the discussions that led to
initiation of this work.  I would be glad to add additional background
or detail as requested.  There was a significant body of work that the
Council and community engaged in that led up to the decision in March
2009 to pursue costs and feasibility for the specific study areas
selected.  There were also other studies initially proposed by members
of the community and by the GAC.  Those described in my report were
selected by the Council for staff to pursue. 

        2.       The Policy staff is also releasing a first draft later
this month of an additional "study" that was requested by the GNSO
Council in May 2009.  This "study" is more accurately described as a
compilation or synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements,  that includes
known deficiencies in the current service and "any possible requirements
that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been
suggested in the past". As requested in the resolution initiating this
work, when Staff releases the report, we will be consulting with the
SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO on this draft, and an updated
synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Steve Sheng is
the primary author of this upcoming report.  

        3.       Regarding both reports, staff has tried to be
responsive to the expectations of the GNSO in initiating the requests.
If more work is needed or you have something further in mind, please let
us know.  We consider both to be working documents that can be updated
or refined upon community review.  

        4.       There are many important details to consider, but
ultimately the Council will want to consider whether to recommend
funding for WHOIS studies in the FY 2011 budget.  WHOIS studies have
been noted as a potential future expense for some time, but the analysis
I've just completed provides much-needed detail on specific costs to
anticipate for the WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification
studies.  

         

        At the time this work was initiated, there were differing views
about whether / which studies should be undertaken.  Hopefully the
information provided will be useful to the Council in considering next
steps.  I might also suggest that this information be provided to the
GAC given its extensive previous recommendations for further study of
WHOIS.  Staff can forward the report or the Council may certainly do so.

         

        Again, we look forward to your comments and input!  

         

        Thanks, Liz