<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Whois Studies
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Whois Studies
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:28:06 +0200
- In-reply-to: <005401cbff8e$7fe84b00$7fb8e100$@robinson@ipracon.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <005401cbff8e$7fe84b00$7fb8e100$@robinson@ipracon.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John, Debbie, do you consider these friendly?
Stéphane
Le 20 avr. 2011 à 21:09, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :
> All,
>
> 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:
>
> “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.”
>
> 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
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|