RE: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse

["Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike

 

I am fine with this language if you are.

 

Take care

Terry

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:43 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse

 

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/> 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).