RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tim,

The reveal study RFP notes section 3.7.7.3 of the RAA (see p. 2 of the RFP, 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm ) and that 
many Proxy/Privacy services and registrars have developed various policies and 
procedures for handling relay and identity reveal requests.  The purpose of the 
study is to document actual experiences with a broad sample of reveal requests 
that are made and the results of the study will describe what has occurred with 
each case as thoroughly as possible.  If Proxy/Privacy services and Registrars 
are willing to assist in the study by helping the researchers determine if the 
request was received, relayed, responded to or otherwise acted upon, then that 
information will also be included in study results.

If the P/P services and registrars do participate, and differing 
interpretations of the relevant RAA provision have a measurable impact on the 
results of the study, then that will be reported as well.  But the primary 
purpose of the study is simply to obtain empirical data about what is actually 
occurring, and this is not contingent on potential differences of opinion about 
how parties define “reasonable evidence of actionable harm”.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks, Liz

From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:22 PM
To: Liz Gasster
Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; kKleiman@xxxxxxx; dblumenthal@xxxxxxx; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions

Liz,

To what extent does the PP Reveal portion of the study rely on how
various parties define "reasonable evidence of actionable harm?" If
there is disagreement as to how that is defined by the various parties
in the study, how will that affect the data that may be produced?

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions
> From: Liz Gasster
> Date: Mon, March 28, 2011 2:59 pm
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
> Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" , "Kathy Kleiman
> (kKleiman@xxxxxxx<mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx>)" , Don Blumenthal
> , "Steve DelBianco
> (sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" , "Lisa
> Phifer (lisa@core
>
> All,
>
> Following is an update on discussions that have been occurring with several 
> registries and others regarding pending consideration of the Whois studies.
>
> Staff has participated in three calls with Chuck Gomes, Kathy Kleiman and Don 
> Blumenthal of the Registry Stakeholder Group and Steve Del Bianco of the 
> Business Constituency to help the Registry Stakeholder Group understand some 
> of the details of the pending Whois studies, and to provide further 
> information so that they can decide which studies they might want to support, 
> or whether modifications might be desired to mitigate any concerns.  The plan 
> has been for the RySG to develop possible amendments to the Whois study 
> motion if needed, and have them reviewed by the RySG in time for them to be 
> submitted to the Council list not later than Wednesday, 30 March for 
> consideration in the 7 April Council meeting.  While the discussions focused 
> specifically on the RySG concerns, the group also noted that Steve and Kathy 
> would communicate with CSG and NCSG members respectively as needed or helpful.
>
> As a result of these discussions, good progress was made on studies 3 and 4.  
> Staff prepared a synopsis of the pre-study survey proposed for Study #4, and 
> I have attached that document in the hopes that it will also be useful for 
> the full Council in your deliberations.
>
> More time is needed for the RySG to discuss study #2, the “Registrant 
> Identification” Study and a follow up call will be scheduled to continue the 
> discussions on this study.  The RySG will decide in its meeting on Wednesday 
> what it will recommend regarding studies 3 and 4.
>
> As these studies are of broad interest, the RySG reps asked me to convey the 
> current status to all of you.
>
> Thanks, Liz
>
>
>