ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] A WhoIs motion for our meeting in San Francisco

I second this motion.


Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
American Red Cross 

Office of the General Counsel  
2025 E Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Phone: (202) 303-5356 
Fax: (202) 303-0143 
HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 8:36 PM
To: Glen de Saint Géry
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] A WhoIs motion for our meeting in San Francisco


As the new guy, I am willing to tilt at windmills and so want to offer this 
motion for consideration at the next meeting of the GNSO Council




John Berard




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 


Before defining study details, 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 


On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to 
develop a proposed list, ifany, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff 
would be asked to providecost estimates to the Council 


The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 
25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a new WHOIS Hypotheses working 
group to prepare a list of hypotheses from 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). The WG 
reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. 


On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a group of Councilors and constituency 
members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost 
estimates should be obtained. TheWhois Study Drafting Team further consolidated 
studies including those from the GAC 
(http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).  The 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 


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, http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903).


On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented a report on the feasibility and cost estimates 
for the Whois "Misuse" and Whois "Registrant Identification" Studies, finding 
that each study would cost approximately $150,000 and take approximately one 
year to complete. 
  The Whois Registrant Identification study would gather info about how 
business/commercial domain registrants are identified, and correlate such 
identification with the use of proxy/privacyservices.  


The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at least 
$400,000 for WHOIS studies (see 


On 8-September-2010 the GNSO Council approved a resolution requesting staff to 
proceed with the Whois "Misuse" Study, which would explore the extent to which 
publicly displayed WHOIS data is misused, 


On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois 
Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, 
 This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy 
orprivacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful acts 
withoverall frequency of proxy and privacy registrations.  This study was 
estimated to cost $150,000 and take less than a year to complete.


On 11-February-2011, staff provided a feasibility and cost analysis for a Whois 
Proxy and Privacy "Relay and Reveal" study, 
 which would analyze relay and reveal requests sent for Privacy and 
Proxy-registered domains to explore and document how they are processed.  The 
staff analysis concluded that it was premature to conduct a full study, and 
recommended that a pre-study "survey" be conducted first, to determine if 
launching a full study is feasible to do.




Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Registrant 
Identification Study, as described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the 
vendor selection process described in Annex of that same report. 


Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the 
Whois Privacy and Proxy "Abuse" study, as described in staff's 5-October-2010 
report, using the vendor selection process described in that same report, 


Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the 
Whois Privacy and Proxy "Relay and Reveal" pre-study survey, as proposed in 
staff's 11-February-2011 report, 


Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize additional 
funding for FY 2012 forWhois studies, to make up the shortfall of $130,000 
between the amount of "at least $400,000" that was allocated for Whois studies 
in FY 2011 (and remains unspent), and the total amount needed to conduct the 
Whois Misuse Study ($150,000); the Whois Registrant Identification Study 
($150,000); the Proxy/Privacy "Abuse" Study ($150,000); and the Proxy and 
Privacy "Pre-study" ($80,000), total of $530,000.


Further resolved, in recognition that there is a substantial amount of 
coordination needed to direct this research, that staff be given the discretion 
to manage the studies serially or in parallel, with a goal of expediting 
completion of the studies as efficiently as possible.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>