RE: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mike and all,

I apologize that I did not catch this earlier, but I would like to suggest one 
change to the following language in Mike Rodenbaugh's motion below.  The 
current text is:

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."

I propose replacement language that says:

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.

The language in Mike's motion is the hypothesis for one of the proposals 
included in the Misuse Terms of Reference (original study #1 for those who are 
following closely).  The "final" hypothesis I am suggesting was included in the 
Misuse Terms of Reference, which  "integrated" several Misuse study proposals 
and was adjusted to be sure the hypothesis was testable.  It is also consistent 
with the Resolved clause below, because the 23 March report referenced includes 
the hypothesis language I suggest above.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this suggestion.

Thanks, Liz

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/).

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/) 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-25feb08.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).

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).

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_study_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 ).

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).

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), 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)

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).