RE: [council] Whois Studies

[<HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, friendly.

 

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
American Red Cross 

Office of the General Counsel  
2025 E Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Phone: (202) 303-5356 
Fax: (202) 303-0143 
HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

 

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:41 PM
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Whois Studies

 

Yes, friendly

Berard

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Whois Studies
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Date: Thu, April 21, 2011 1:28 am
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" 
> 
> 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
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>