[council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse

Wed Jul 14 16:14:36 UTC 2010

On 07/14/2010 11:15 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>
> Hi Wendy,
>
> If you have specific changes to the text in mind, then we can consider as
> potential friendly amendments.

Thanks, Mike.  Since I am against funding this study, I do not think my 
overall amendment would be friendly.  (I think it remains possible that 
other WHOIS studies could be better designed and should be prioritized 
in funding.)  I think the narrative history is interesting, but not 
something that requires a vote of the GNSO Council (and the necessary 
fact-checking that would precede such a vote). I'd move that to a 
separate information page.

>
> As for the additional discussion that Staff calls for, Staff could/should
> have that discussion with the vendor as the contract is negotiated by Staff.

I think that is too much delegation. Since the validity and utility of 
the study will depend on the outcome of that discussion, I think GNSO 
should not approve until after these important elements have been 
clarified.

--Wendy

>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:01 AM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.
> Cc: icann at rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
>
>
> Two questions: Why do we need so much detail in the Whereas clauses?  I
> don't believe that's necessary or helpful.
>
> Second, I do not believe that we have enough detail in the Resolved, or
> the staff report to which it refers, to be confident that the Misuse
> Study would be a statistically or scientifically valid study.
>
> Even the staff report still indicates  "However, even that [superior]
> proposal did not address key challenges that could diminish the WHOIS
> policy contributions afforded by this study - notably, determining the
> "significance" of misuse and proving a causal relationship between
> misuse reduction and WHOIS anti-harvesting measures. If ICANN and GNSO
> elect to pursue this study, these concerns should be discussed with the
> bidder before a contract is awarded."
>
> Who would be responsible for the "concerns should be discussed"?  I
> think that question remains at the GNSO level.
>
>
> I am therefore planning to vote against this resolution.
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
>
> On 07/13/2010 11:51 AM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't that anyone else seconded your motion.  If there is no second
>> still, I second this motion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Take care
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> On
>> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM
>> To: 'GNSO Council'
>> Subject: [council] Motion re Study on WHOIS Misuse
>>
>>
>>
>> I submit the attached motion (copied also below) for consideration by the
>> Council at our meeting next week.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would appreciate a second, and am happy to answer any questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>
>> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
>>
>> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> GNSO Council motion to pursue study of Whois Misuse.
>>
>> Whereas:
>>
>> In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and
>> objective understanding of key factual issues  regarding the gTLD Whois
>> system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/>   http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
>>
>> Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited
>> suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS.
>> Suggestions were submitted (
>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/>
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/) and ICANN staff
> prepared
>> a  'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated
>> 25-Feb-2008 (
>>
> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25
>> feb08.pdf>
>>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25f
>> eb08.pdf).
>>
>> On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working
> Group
>> to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN
>> staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml).
>>
>> The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and
> on
>> 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers
>> (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on
> Further
>> Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (
>> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf>
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf).
>>
>> This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and
>> reported to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.
>>
> (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_st
>> udy_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
>>
>> On 5-Nov-2008, the Council convened a volunteer group of Councilors and
>> interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies,
> if
>> any, for which cost estimates should be obtained.  The Whois Study
> Drafting
>> Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC (
>> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf>
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf ).
>>
>>
>>
>> For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to
> assign
>> priority rank and assess feasibility.  5 constituencies provided the
>> requested rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated
>> that no further studies were justified.  The GAC was also invited to
> assign
>> priorities, but no reply was received.  The Drafting Team determined that
>> the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the
>> subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost
>> estimates.
>>
>> On 04-Mar-2009, Council requested Staff to conduct research on feasibility
>> and cost estimates for selected Whois studies and report its findings to
>> Council.  (See Motion 3 at
>> <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions>
>> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions).
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23-Mar-2010, Staff presented its latest report on feasibility and cost
>> estimates for Whois Studies. (
>>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
>> pdf) This report included a Staff Analysis and Recommendations for the
> first
>> study, regarding WHOIS Misuse.   The WHOIS Misuse study addressed 3
>> originally requested studies (1, 14, and 21) and GAC data set 2.   The
>> hypothesis of the WHOIS Misuse study is: "Public access to WHOIS data is
>> responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm
>> to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose."
>>
>>
>> At ICANN's meeting in Brussels, representatives of the GAC reiterated
> their
>> interest in ICANN's response to the GAC letter of Apr-2008, which included
>> these requests for further studies of WHOIS (
>> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf>
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf),
> stating:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS gTLD data
> should
>> be undertaken by neutral third parties and should create a factual record
>> that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS data recognized by the GAC
> WHOIS
>> Principles. The goal should be to initially compile data that provides a
>> documented evidence base regarding:
>>
>>
>>
>> .  the amount and source of traffic accessing WHOIS servers and the types
>> and numbers of different groups of users and what those users are using
>> WHOIS data for; and
>>
>>
>>
>> .  the types and extent of misuses of WHOIS data and what harm is caused
> by
>> each type of misuse, including economic, use of WHOIS data in SPAM
>> generation, abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft,
>> security costs and loss of data."
>>
>>
>>
>> The Affirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN conduct reviews of
> WHOIS
>> policy and implementation "to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is
>> effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law
>> enforcement and promotes consumer trust."  The first such review must be
>> organized by 30-Sep-2010.  (
>>
> <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
>>>
>>
> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm)
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes at least $450,000 for WHOIS
>> studies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Resolved:
>>
>> Council requests ICANN staff to proceed with the WHOIS Misuse Study, as
>> described in Staff's 23-Mar-2010 Report, using the vendor selection
> process
>> described in Annex of that same report. (
>>
> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en
>> .pdf>
>>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en.
>> pdf).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
phone: +1.914.374.0613
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/