RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tim,

I just want to make clear that the pre-study would assess not just willingness 
to participate but conditions and constraints on participation, and not just 
from Registrars and Privacy/Proxy service providers, but also from request 
originators, including concerns about confidentiality and client privilege. 
Unless all of these concerns are evaluated, we cannot estimate the cost or 
feasibility of conducting the study itself.

As a personal comment, from working on the study development process as 
extensively as I have, I think it can only help the fulsomeness of the study’s 
results if Registrars and P/P providers do participate.  I do not think that 
participating in the study would prevent anyone from challenging conclusions or 
interpretations that seem unsound or are not proven by the facts.  That said, 
the idea of the pre-study evolved because the researchers who reviewed the RFP 
were concerned about lack of participation all round.  The purpose of the 
pre-study is to determine if that hurdle is insurmountable or not.

Thanks, Liz

From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 7:02 AM
To: Liz Gasster
Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; kKleiman@xxxxxxx; dblumenthal@xxxxxxx; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions

Perhaps, but the application/understanding of the data collected, or its
usefulness, will rely largely on how each service applied 3.7.7.3 for
the reveal aspect. Any data cannot be fully understood without it. Keep
in mind that 3.7.7.3 is part of what the Registrar is required to
include in its agreement with the registrant, and ICANN's compliance
effort, at least today, ends with making sure it is appropriately
included in Registrars' registration agreements. So Registrars may
interpret it differently based on registrant expectations and local
laws.

IMHO, the ambiguity of how any resultant data would be used and/or
interpreted would certainly cause hesitation on the part of many if not
most proxy services from participating. I suggest that we don't need to
spend tens of thousands of dollars to find this out. Why not just ask a
significant sampling if they would or not? And although the issues are
somewhat different for the relay part, the same applies. Why not just
ask? I think you will get a pretty good idea of the cooperation level
from that, for a lot less money.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Update on Whois studies discussions
> From: Liz Gasster
> Date: Tue, March 29, 2011 6:38 pm
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: "cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" , 
> "kKleiman@xxxxxxx<mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx>"
> , "dblumenthal@xxxxxxx<mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>" ,
> "sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>" ,
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
>
> 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 
> harmâ��.Â
>
> I hope this is helpful.Â
>
> Thanks, Liz
>
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: Liz Gasster
> Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> kKleiman@xxxxxxx<mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx>; 
> dblumenthal@xxxxxxx<mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>; 
> sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
>
>