[council] Whois Studies

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Thanks to you both.

Stéphane



Le 25 avr. 2011 à 15:00, <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org> a écrit :

> 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 at usa.redcross.org
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john at crediblecontext.com
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:41 PM
> To: stephane.vangelder at indom.com
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
> 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 at gnso.icann.org 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
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110425/95a3523e/attachment.html>