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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Liz, 

Thank you very much for that clarification. That's what I hoped it meant to 
say.  

Kind regards


----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy 
dotMobi 


----- Original Message -----
From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Caroline Greer; GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Mar 31 17:52:55 2010
Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies 
attached for your review and discussion

Hi Caroline,

 

Thanks so much for your interest in the studies!  I think I understand your 
question, and I think the problem or concern is related to my use of the term 
“desire”.  What I mean to say is that the researchers all conveyed that they 
thought it was important in order to prove or disprove the hypothesis to try to 
find (or determine the absence of) a specific link between publicly-displayed 
information related to a specific domain name and subsequent misuse of the 
registration data for that domain name.  I think that goes to the crux of the 
question raised in the hypothesis and was not intend to convey that they were 
partial to any particular outcome.  

 

In retrospect I think I could have used a better word, but the important point 
I was trying to make with that “lead-in” is while the researchers demonstrated 
that they grasped the optimal goal of the study (to examine the queries that 
lead to harmful acts), the methodologies they proposed might not yield an 
unequivocal result and at best might yield only a “loose correlation” regarding 
the extent to which various anti-harvesting measures result in reductions of 
harmful acts.

 

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you would like further 
clarification.

 

Best, Liz

 

From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:33 AM
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

 

Liz,

 

Many thanks for sending through the initial staff report.

 

I noticed one particular line in the report that I wanted to clarify. Under the 
Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies section [Staff recommendations about 
Misuse Studies, based on RFP responses], the following is stated: “Every bidder 
expressed a strong desire to tie WHOIS queries directly to harmful acts.” 

 

I checked back on the ToR and it appears (please correct me if I am wrong) that 
the intent was to prove or disprove the following hypothesis:

 

Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse – that is, 
to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise

contrary to the stated legitimate purpose.

 

Perhaps it is just the way that the report is worded but do you think that the 
bidders are open from the outset to either proving or disproving the 
hypothesis? It did not read that way and seems as if assumptions are already 
being made (which may of course be correct, but study and analysis should bring 
about that result).

 

Kind regards,

 

Caroline.

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: 23 March 2010 23:47
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