RE: [council] Whois Studies

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Won't the researchers who responded to the RFP need to review the
changes and comment on their cost and feasibility? Will June 1 allow
enough time for that?

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Whois Studies
> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, April 20, 2011 2:09 pm
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> FW: Whois StudiesAll,
>  
> Based on the rationalisation outlined below, I would like to propose that 
> Council further defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification 
> Study i.e. that the motion be amended as follows:
>  
> &#8220;Council defers consideration of the WHOIS Registrant Identification 
> Study until the 9 June 2011 meeting and requests that any applicable motions 
> in that regard be submitted not later than 1 June 2011.&#8221;
>  
> The rationale for further delay is that the small working group of volunteers 
> has met twice recently to discuss the Whois Study #2, the WHOIS Registrant 
> Identification Study.  The intention was to have a revised Study 2 proposal 
> for Council consideration in the 28 April meeting.  They anticipated making 
> revisions to reduce presumptively negative terminology while retaining the 
> original study design to prove/disprove a hypothesis that natural persons 
> were using privacy/proxy while also engaging in commercial activities.  But 
> the discussion revealed more extensive questions about study 2:
> ·         First, they believe that the present Study 2 proposal could be 
> easily amended to answer all four registrant identification questions posed 
> by the GAC in their April-2008 recommendations. 
> ·         Second, they believe that the objective and results of Study 2 can 
> be improved to generate broader and deeper analysis that would provide needed 
> context for GNSO and ICANN in future work on these issues. 
> Their goal will be to submit Study 2 recommendations to the Council not later 
> than 1 June, in time for the 9 June Council meeting.  
> This delay should not have any impact on Studies 3 & 4, which are under 
> consideration in the motion that is to be acted on April 28.   
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> 
>