<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion
Thanks Liz. Very helpful.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council List
Cc: Steve Sheng
Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested
WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion
Chuck and all, please see my responses below. Please let me
know if you have any more questions or would like more information.
Thanks, Liz
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Liz Gasster; GNSO Council List
Cc: Steve Sheng
Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested
WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion
Importance: High
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.
LG - The Council should understand that the issue of how
significance might be assessed is one that remains even after several
bidders and numerous subject matter experts pored through this study for
months, and so far no one has yet found a good answer for. Based on my
work to-date, my view is ICANN and the bidder would probably need to
invest more than a day or two discussing these concerns and proposed
methods to arrive at workable solutions for what (after months of
discussion) are still unresolved challenges. I believe that if the
Council wants to pursue this study and recognizing this concern, the
next step would be for staff to ask the bidder to address this concern
before awarding a contract.
"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.
LG - We would not look to the Council to choose between the
bidders or methodologies, that is something staff would work out once
the decision is made to pursue this study. My point in making that
statement was simply to say that there were credible options presented
by two bidders, which is useful in confirming the feasibility of such a
study.
"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.
LG - Agree that it is too early. Information on the proxy and
privacy "abuse" study might be available in July or August (I have not
released an RFP yet). We are still not sure about the viability of a
privacy/proxy "reveal" study. If the Council thinks it is likely to
find the proxy/privacy abuse study to also be of a high priority, then
asking for a set aside for that study might make sense. Given current
budget constraints and the cost of the first two studies, it may also
make sense to look to the FY 2012 budget.
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#
<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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|