<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>For those unable to be on the call, our intention for the budget request was not to get into the</div><div>details of consumer profiles for the research study. That is not a cost variable and we can determine what we</div><div>want for a "representative" sample of consumers when we draft the RFP or perhaps later, in the contract</div><div>negotiation with the firm who is selected.</div><div><br></div><div>We did agree to strike a sentence in the budget request at Kathy's recommendation and then to move forward with submitting the budget request.</div><div><br></div><div>We closed the call with Emily asking everyone to prepare a list of options for consumer profiles or</div><div>attributes so we can work on that next.</div><div>Kind regards to all,</div><div>Lynn</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request - concern<br>
and suggestion<br>
From: Omar Kaminski <<a href="mailto:omar@kaminski.adv.br">omar@kaminski.adv.br</a>><br>
Date: Fri, April 29, 2011 12:15 am<br>
To: "Kim G. von Arx" <<a href="mailto:kim@vonarx.ca">kim@vonarx.ca</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
Dear Kim, Kathy,<br>
<br>
On the other side, broaden it so much makes us think who are *not*<br>
eligible in "thinking about getting one".<br>
<br>
I think any individual should be considered a potential owner -<br>
virtually anybody.<br>
<br>
My 2 cents,<br>
<br>
Omar<br>
<br>
<br>
2011/4/28 Kim G. von Arx <<a href="mailto:kim@vonarx.ca">kim@vonarx.ca</a>>:<br>
> Dear All:<br>
> My apologies that I was not able to make the call.<br>
> After reviewing Kathy's lengthy email explaining her worries about the<br>
> "scope" of the focus group project, I think I have to agree with Kathy that<br>
> we should limit it to a degree. However, I would be hesitant to limit only<br>
> to people who have a domain name or who are hoping to register one. I would<br>
> suggest we broaden that a little by saying that it would include any<br>
> person:<br>
> 1. Who has a domain name<br>
> 2. Who has plans to get one<br>
> 3. Who has/is thinking about getting one sometime in the future<br>
> I agree there should be some kind of anchor to the DNS, how ever tenuous it<br>
> may be. Otherwise, we may as well ask anyone from a new born to a<br>
> great-great-parent. Nevertheless, I do think we should include the fringe<br>
> of people who are thinking about getting a domain name or who have toyed<br>
> with the idea or think it might be interesting etc and NOT just the one's<br>
> who are planning to get one. I hope the distinction between "planning" vs<br>
> "thinking" is clear. In essence, I would like to capture the people who<br>
> make up the top right third of the adoption curve of a new technology, i.e.,<br>
> the late adopters and stragglers...<br>
> Not sure if all of this makes sense. I am having a flue right now and have<br>
> a fever so I may have written gibberish in my fever trance...<br>
> Kim<br>
><br>
> __________________________________<br>
> <a href="mailto:kim@vonarx.ca">kim@vonarx.ca</a><br>
> +1 (613) 286-4445<br>
> "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 27 Apr 2011, at 15:30, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear Lynn,<br>
> Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim<br>
> and Susan for all of the work on it. It is an excellent and important step<br>
> forward.<br>
><br>
> That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I<br>
> expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can<br>
> discuss this issue this evening.<br>
><br>
> What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be<br>
> surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN. What that seems to imply<br>
> is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of<br>
> domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below]<br>
><br>
> I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of<br>
> reasons, including:<br>
> 1) The Board has send the general “consumer” issue of the AoC to the<br>
> GNSO Council for definition and deliberation. With that process still in<br>
> progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in<br>
> in a broad manner. This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I<br>
> think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2) I fear that reaching out to a group with no awareness of Internet<br>
> processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we<br>
> say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain<br>
> name data otherwise. I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer<br>
> who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois<br>
> system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds<br>
> of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow “consumer”<br>
> definitions we put out for public comment.<br>
><br>
> 3) The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review<br>
> Team making policy, rather than reflecting it. Let me explain the objection<br>
> I think might be raised. If we survey everyone, regardless of their<br>
> knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are<br>
> implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and<br>
> verification tool for all websites. The purpose of Whois, however, remains<br>
> an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we<br>
> reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the<br>
> Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very<br>
> nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an “operational point of<br>
> contact” replacing all existing Whois data. That was a process that took<br>
> place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final<br>
> vote.<br>
><br>
> Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow “purpose” of<br>
> the Whois – an operational point of contact close to the “technical point of<br>
> contact” which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as<br>
> shared by early DARPA users). The larger vision of Whois’ use and purpose,<br>
> as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in<br>
> the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing<br>
> it.<br>
><br>
> That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important – and<br>
> provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know<br>
> have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois<br>
> system and use it -- I think we are well within the scope of the AoC<br>
> (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes.<br>
><br>
> That’s still massive group! Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look<br>
> forward to talking more tonight.<br>
><br>
> All the best,<br>
> Kathy<br>
><br>
> *”We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no<br>
> awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is<br>
> this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust<br>
> the Internet and specifically ICANN’s role in establishing that<br>
> trust.”BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT<br>
><br>
><br>
> Kathy Kleiman<br>
> Director of Policy<br>
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry<br>
> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846| <a href="http://www.pir.org ">www.pir.org </a>;|<br>
><br>
> Find us on Facebook | .ORG Blog | Flickr | YouTube | Twitter |<br>
><br>
> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public<br>
> Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then<br>
> delete.<br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="http://rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On">rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On</a><br>
> Behalf Of <a href="mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com">lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com</a><br>
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request<br>
><br>
> Dear All,<br>
> Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a<br>
> budget request to<br>
> submit to the ICANN Board.<br>
><br>
> The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft.<br>
> Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement<br>
> and move forward.<br>
><br>
> Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan<br>
> which provides additional reinforcement for the proposed external study.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Lynn<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Rt4-whois mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Rt4-whois mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Rt4-whois mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>