[bc-gnso] Whois Studies discussion at 1-Apr GNSO Council Meeting
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Wed Mar 31 21:43:47 UTC 2010
Mike & Zahid --
You asked for some BC membership views on the Whois studies that will be
discussed at your Council meeting tomorrow (1-Apr). See below and
attachment. Hope this helps.
Your agenda shows potential actions on Whois studies:
> 3.4.1 Review and assess cost and feasibility estimates for the studies
> 3.4.2 Decide whether to pursue any of the studies and, if so, which ones
> 3.4.3 Provide input into the FY11 budget process
> 3.5 How should we accomplish the above?
> Should we form a drafting team to develop recommendations for
> consideration in our next meeting?
> Note that a final budget has to be finished by 17 May and there are
> currently no funds budgeted for Whois Studies
Let¹s proceed with the Misuse and Registrant Identification studies.
> The Misuse and Registrant ID studies are likely to generate data that would
> affect policy decisions and compliance work. These 2 studies are not going to
> stop the long-standing disagreements between passionate parties on either
> side, but that¹s not the point of doing studies. Remember the debate over
> domain tasting? Fact-based data on the number of deletes with the AGP were
> astounding, and helped us enact a policy change. The data did not make
> everyone agree on whether domain tasting was harmful. But facts showed a
> hugely prevalent use of AGP that was outside its original purpose, and that
> moved us to a new consensus policy.
> We¹ll certainly use study data when setting policy and compliance standards,
> especially with so many new TLD operators coming online next year.
> Moreover, the Affirmation of Commitments (9.3.1) requires ICANN to ³organize a
> review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which
> WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of
> law enforcement and promotes consumer trust². The Misuse and Registrant data
> studies will be essential for that review.
> We will also want to have these study results on hand so they can be compared
> with study results after new TLDs are operating for one year, as required by
> the Affirmation of Commitments item 9.3
Let¹s go right to the core issue of Money. Consider this discussion that
happened during Council meeting in Nairobi:
> Liz Gasster described some study proposals as "expensive" and then Stefane and
> Wolf commented on the costs and budget constraints.
> I intervened to say that the lack of fact-based studies has itself been very
> expensive over several years of time & travel on the part of dozens of
> community members. Those costs will continue unless/until we have facts at
> hand to make policy decisions.
> Marilyn made a similar point about need for fact-based analysis.
> Bruce Tonkin recommended that Council budget a lump sum for studies, then
> decide how to spend it. Don't budget each specific study, he said.
> I believe Bruce Tonkin is right. Council should ask for a budget of $XXX,XXX
> in FY 2011 for a general category of Whois studies. Since we need a budget
> number now, I¹d say $360,000, to cover the misuse and registrant studies
> ($150K each) plus a 20% contingency.
Next steps: I would ask staff to begin negotiating with the two superior¹
bidders on detailed workplan for their studies. Staff should start by
asking bidders to review:
> The 4-Mar-2009 Council resolution on Whois studies, including the original
> rationale for each hypothesis, etc.
> The Affirmation of Commitments, items 9.3 and 9.3.1
> Staff should also show the bidders any Whois-related items in the Draft
> Applicant Guidebook.
> Superior Bidders can then prepare detailed study workplans that policy staff
> can analyze and present to Council later this year.
Note: The Staff report (page 7) mentions the Whois Accuracy report, and
asks whether ³barriers to accuracy² provide useful insights to policy.
> I would answer, ³Accuracy is something we aspire to; whereas inaccuracy is a
> contract compliance problem.²
> Let¹s set high aspirations to require accurate Whois data for registrants,
> even if we know that lots of data is inaccurate today. After all, registrars
> manage to gather credit card information that¹s sufficiently accurate to
> ensure they get paid. Let¹s find ways to ensure they apply the same
> diligence in collecting and validating public Whois data.
> (Note: Susan Kawaguchi of Facebook volunteered to draft BC comments on Whois
> Accuracy report. Those aren¹t due until 15-Apr)
Whois Studies Reports and resources:
> Presentation Slides:
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: On the Whois studies.docx
Size: 120362 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Bc-gnso