[council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion

[Liz Gasster]

Hi Caroline,

Thanks so much for your interest in the studies!  I think I understand your question, and I think the problem or concern is related to my use of the term "desire".  What I mean to say is that the researchers all conveyed that they thought it was important in order to prove or disprove the hypothesis to try to find (or determine the absence of) a specific link between publicly-displayed information related to a specific domain name and subsequent misuse of the registration data for that domain name.  I think that goes to the crux of the question raised in the hypothesis and was not intend to convey that they were partial to any particular outcome.

In retrospect I think I could have used a better word, but the important point I was trying to make with that "lead-in" is while the researchers demonstrated that they grasped the optimal goal of the study (to examine the queries that lead to harmful acts), the methodologies they proposed might not yield an unequivocal result and at best might yield only a "loose correlation" regarding the extent to which various anti-harvesting measures result in reductions of harmful acts.

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you would like further clarification.

Best, Liz

From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer at mtld.mobi]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:33 AM
To: Liz Gasster; GNSO Council List
Cc: Steve Sheng
Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion

Liz,

Many thanks for sending through the initial staff report.

I noticed one particular line in the report that I wanted to clarify. Under the Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies section [Staff recommendations about Misuse Studies, based on RFP responses], the following is stated: "Every bidder expressed a strong desire to tie WHOIS queries directly to harmful acts."

I checked back on the ToR and it appears (please correct me if I am wrong) that the intent was to prove or disprove the following hypothesis:

Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse - that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise
contrary to the stated legitimate purpose.

Perhaps it is just the way that the report is worded but do you think that the bidders are open from the outset to either proving or disproving the hypothesis? It did not read that way and seems as if assumptions are already being made (which may of course be correct, but study and analysis should bring about that result).

Kind regards,

Caroline.


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: 23 March 2010 23:47
To: GNSO Council List
Cc: Steve Sheng
Subject: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion

All,

Attached please find staff's initial report on WHOIS studies as requested by the Council on 4 March 2009.  I will provide an overview of this report at the Council's upcoming 1 April meeting, and I look forward to your comments and input.  My report will also be posted here shortly. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion#<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion>   I will also be posting my presentation slides by the end of this week.  I'd also like to make the following points:


1.       I want to recognize that this effort has been underway for quite some time, and while I have provided many updates along the way, I understand that the background and context may be new to Council members who joined the GNSO following the discussions that led to initiation of this work.  I would be glad to add additional background or detail as requested.  There was a significant body of work that the Council and community engaged in that led up to the decision in March 2009 to pursue costs and feasibility for the specific study areas selected.  There were also other studies initially proposed by members of the community and by the GAC.  Those described in my report were selected by the Council for staff to pursue.

2.       The Policy staff is also releasing a first draft later this month of an additional "study" that was requested by the GNSO Council in May 2009.  This "study" is more accurately described as a compilation or synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements,  that includes known deficiencies in the current service and "any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past". As requested in the resolution initiating this work, when Staff releases the report, we will be consulting with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO on this draft, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this upcoming report.

3.       Regarding both reports, staff has tried to be responsive to the expectations of the GNSO in initiating the requests.  If more work is needed or you have something further in mind, please let us know.  We consider both to be working documents that can be updated or refined upon community review.

4.       There are many important details to consider, but ultimately the Council will want to consider whether to recommend funding for WHOIS studies in the FY 2011 budget.  WHOIS studies have been noted as a potential future expense for some time, but the analysis I've just completed provides much-needed detail on specific costs to anticipate for the WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification studies.

At the time this work was initiated, there were differing views about whether / which studies should be undertaken.  Hopefully the information provided will be useful to the Council in considering next steps.  I might also suggest that this information be provided to the GAC given its extensive previous recommendations for further study of WHOIS.  Staff can forward the report or the Council may certainly do so.

Again, we look forward to your comments and input!

Thanks, Liz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100331/ce8a3597/attachment.html>