[council] Whois Studies

Jonathan Robinson jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
Thu Apr 28 08:10:45 UTC 2011

Hi Tim,


Looking back on the issues in preparation for today’s call, I realise I didn’t reposing to this point.  Apologies.


As I understand it, the situation is likely to pan out as follows:


1.       The small group looking into the WHOIS Studies will develop a recommendation for Study 2 improvements and present those to the Council.  This could consist of one recommendation or a couple of alternative approaches to give the Council some options.  This will become clearer in the next few weeks as they dig a little deeper.

2.       Staff will evaluate what the impact may be on the bids that have already been received and give their opinion to the Council regarding whether or not it will be necessary  to go back to the bidders to reassess their estimates.

3.       The Council will do its due diligence and make a decision whether or not to approve the study with any modifications.

4.       If Council approves a modified study 2, then Staff will interact with the bidders to evaluate the impact of the changes and take necessary steps to determine any cost to time estimates and report that information to the Council in case any of the estimates change.


I trust that’s a helpful update and useful ahead of the GNSO meeting and apologies again for the delay in responding.


Best wishes,







From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: 20 April 2011 21:30
To: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Whois Studies


Won't the researchers who responded to the RFP need to review the
changes and comment on their cost and feasibility? Will June 1 allow
enough time for that?


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Whois Studies
> From: "Jonathan Robinson" 
> Date: Wed, April 20, 2011 2:09 pm
> To: 
> FW: Whois StudiesAll,
> 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/20110428/bd2559da/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list