RE: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse

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

Wendy,

Regarding the level of detail in the 'whereas' portions of motions,
speaking strictly from my personal point of view, I think the detail
provides background references that may or may not be useful depending
on the person involved. If someone does not find it useful, it can be
ignored.  For anyone who does find it helpful, they can use the
information to better understand the background of the motion.  The
detail may be of even more value to those not on the Council who have
not been working the issues very closely like we as Councilors
presumably have been.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:01 AM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.
> Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
> 
> 
> Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses?
I
> don't believe that's necessary or helpful.
> 
> Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved,
or
> the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse
> Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study.
> 
> Even the staff report still indicates  "However, even that [superior]
> 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."
> 
> Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"?  I
> think that question remains at the GNSO level.
> 
> 
> I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> 
> 
> On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion.  If there is no
> second
> > still, I second this motion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Take care
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM
> > To: 'GNSO Council'
> > Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
> >
> >
> >
> > I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration
by
> the
> > Council at our meeting next week.
> >
> >
> >
> > Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Rodenbaugh
> >
> > RODENBAUGH LAW
> >
> > tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> >
> > http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
> >
> > Whereas:
> >
> > In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and
> > objective understanding of key factual issues  regarding the gTLD
> Whois
> > system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (
> > <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/>
> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
> >
> > Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited
> > suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on
WHOIS.
> > Suggestions were submitted (
> > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/>
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff
> prepared
> > a  'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated
> > 25-Feb-2008 (
> > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-
> report-25
> > feb08.pdf>
> > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-
> report-25f
> > eb08.pdf).
> >
> > On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study
> Working Group
> > to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which
> ICANN
> > staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (
> > <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml>
> > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).
> >
> > The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further
studies,
> and on
> > 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of
> volunteers
> > (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on
> Further
> > Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (
> > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf>
> > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
> >
> > This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and
> > reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
> > (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-
> wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st
> > udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
> >
> > On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors
> and
> > interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding
> studies, if
> > any, for which cost estimates should be obtained.  The Whois Study
> Drafting
> > Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC (
> > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf>
> > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
> >
> >
> >
> > For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to
> assign
> > priority rank and assess feasibility.  5 constituencies provided the
> > requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars)
> indicated
> > that no further studies were justified.  The GAC was also invited to
> assign
> > priorities, but no reply was received.  The Drafting Team determined
> that
> > the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be
> the
> > subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost
> > estimates.
> >
> > On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on
> feasibility
> > and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its
findings
> to
> > Council.  (See Motion 3 at
> > <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions>
> > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and
> cost
> > estimates for Whois Studies. (
> > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-
> 23mar10-en.
> > pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for
> the first
> > study, regarding WHOIS Misuse.   The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3
> > originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2.
> The
> > hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS
data
> is
> > responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have
caused
> harm
> > to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial
> purpose."
> >
> >
> > At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC
reiterated
> their
> > interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which
> included
> > these requests for further studies of WHOIS (
> > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf>
> > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf),
> stating:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data
> should
> > be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual
> record
> > that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the
> GAC WHOIS
> > Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that
> provides a
> > documented evidence base regarding:
> >
> >
> >
> > .  the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the
> types
> > and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are
> using
> > WHOIS data for; and
> >
> >
> >
> > .  the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is
> caused by
> > each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM
> > generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity
> theft,
> > security costs and loss of data."
> >
> >
> >
> > The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews
of
> WHOIS
> > policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS
policy
> is
> > effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law
> > enforcement and promotes consumer trust."  The first such review
must
> be
> > organized by 30-Sep-2010.  (
> > <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-
> 30sep09-en.htm
> >>
> >
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-
> en.htm)
> >
> >
> >
> > The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS
> > studies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Resolved:
> >
> > Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study,
> as
> > described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection
> process
> > described in Annex of that same report. (
> > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-
> 23mar10-en
> > .pdf>
> > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-
> 23mar10-en.
> > pdf).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
> phone: +1.914.374.0613
> Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/