[Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request - concern and suggestion

Fri Apr 29 01:42:41 UTC 2011

Dear All: 

My apologies that I was not able to make the call.  

After reviewing Kathy's lengthy email explaining her worries about the "scope" of the focus group project, I think I have to agree with Kathy that we should limit it to a degree.  However, I would be hesitant to limit only to people who have a domain name or who are hoping to register one.  I would suggest we broaden that a little by saying that it would include any person: 

1. Who has a domain name
2. Who has plans to get one
3. Who has/is thinking about getting one sometime in the future

I agree there should be some kind of anchor to the DNS, how ever tenuous it may be.  Otherwise, we may as well ask anyone from a new born to a great-great-parent.  Nevertheless, I do think we should include the fringe of people who are thinking about getting a domain name or who have toyed with the idea or think it might be interesting etc and NOT just the one's who are planning to get one.  I hope the distinction between "planning" vs "thinking" is clear.  In essence, I would like to capture the people who make up the top right third of the adoption curve of a new technology, i.e., the late adopters and stragglers...

Not sure if all of this makes sense.  I am having a flue right now and have a fever so I may have written gibberish in my fever trance... 

Kim 

__________________________________

kim at vonarx.ca
+1 (613) 286-4445

"Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."

On 27 Apr 2011, at 15:30, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Dear Lynn,
> Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim and Susan for all of the work on it.  It is an excellent and important step forward.
>  
> That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can discuss this issue this evening.
>  
> What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN.  What that seems to imply is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below]
>  
> I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of reasons, including:
> 1)      The Board has send the general “consumer” issue of the AoC to the GNSO Council for definition and deliberation.  With that process still in progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in in a broad manner.  This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.  
>  
> 2)      I fear that reaching out to  a group with no awareness of Internet processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain name data otherwise.  I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow “consumer” definitions we put out for public comment.
>  
> 3)      The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review Team making policy, rather than reflecting it.  Let me explain the objection I think might be raised.  If we survey everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and verification tool for all websites.  The purpose of Whois, however, remains an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an “operational point of contact” replacing all existing Whois data.  That was a process that took place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final vote.
>  
> Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow “purpose” of the Whois – an operational point of contact close to the “technical point of contact” which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as shared by early DARPA users).   The larger vision of Whois’ use and purpose, as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing it.
>  
> That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important – and provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois system and use it --  I think we are well within the scope of the AoC (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes.
>  
> That’s still massive group!   Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look forward to talking more tonight.
>  
> All the best,
> Kathy
>  
> *”We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust the Internet and specifically ICANN’s role in establishing that trust.”BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT
>  
>  
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org | 
>  
> Find us on Facebook  |  .ORG Blog | Flickr | YouTube | Twitter |
>  
> Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>  
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request
>  
> Dear All,
> Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a budget request to
> submit to the ICANN Board.
>  
> The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft.   Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement and move forward.
>  
> Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan which provides additional reinforcement for the proposed external study.
>  
> Best regards,
> Lynn
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110428/b97b2d47/attachment.html 