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

Fri Apr 29 04:15:19 UTC 2011

Dear Kim, Kathy,

On the other side, broaden it so much makes us think who are *not*
eligible in "thinking about getting one".

I think any individual should be considered a potential owner -
virtually anybody.

My 2 cents,

Omar

2011/4/28 Kim G. von Arx <kim at vonarx.ca>:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>