[council] Recommendations regarding Whois studies

[<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I accept this friendly amendment.


Cheers, 


Berard


Motion made by John Berard & seconded by Debbie Hughes (With Friendly
Amendment Proposed by the RySG)


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 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
(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 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.
(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 group of Councilors and
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 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 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,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.
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf).
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/privacy services.
The ICANN Board approved in Brussels a FY2011 budget that includes at
least $400,000 for WHOIS studies (see
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#8).


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,http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201009.


On 5-October-2010, staff provided feasibility and cost analysis for a
Whois Privacy and Proxy “Abuse” study,
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf.
This study would compare broad sample of domains registered with a proxy
or privacy service provider that are associated with alleged harmful
acts with overall 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,
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf,
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.


Resolved:
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.
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.pdf).
Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification
Study until the 28 April 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable
motions in that regard be submitted not later than 20 April 2011.


Further resolved, that the Council requests ICANN staff amend the study
to include the RySG proposed changes (insert link) and to proceed with
the Whois Privacy and Proxy “Abuse” study, as described in staff’s
5-October-2010 report and as amended, using the vendor selection process
described in that same report,
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct10-en.pdf.


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,http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11feb11-en.pdf.


Further resolved, that the Council request that the Board authorize
additional funding for FY 2012 for Whois studies, to make up the any
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) if subsequently
approved; 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.