Fwd: [council] Report on public suggestions of further studies of WHOIS

[Robin Gross]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster at icann.org>
> Date: February 25, 2008 5:26:55 PM PST
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Report on public suggestions of further studies  
> of WHOIS
>
> All,
>
> You may recall that when the GNSO Council decided last October in  
> LA to terminate the pending PDP on WHOIS, you also decided to  
> solicit public opinions about the types of future studies that  
> might be conducted on WHOIS, to inform future policy development.   
> You may also recall that the 31 October resolution asks staff to  
> prepare a summary of the submissions received (amended to request  
> by February 25), and the Council would then provide additional  
> definition regarding potential data gathering and study  
> requirements.  Staff would then provide the Council with rough cost  
> estimates for various components of data gathering and studies as  
> requested by the Council.  Based on those cost estimates, the  
> Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be  
> pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and  
> studies and report the results back to the Council.
>
> The public comment period closed on 15 February, and attached is a  
> summary and analysis of the public comments we received (25 total)  
> that I’ve compiled with the considerable help of an expert  
> consultant, Lorrie Faith Cranor.  Dr. Cranor is a professor of  
> computer science at Carnegie Mellon U. and an expert researcher on  
> Internet privacy, security and related issues, and we are fortunate  
> to have her expertise to review and collate study suggestions.
>
>
>
> As you consider next steps, I do want to point out that in the  
> attached summary, we have grouped proposed studies according to the  
> following topic areas:
>
>
>
> 1.       WHOIS misuse
>
> 2.       Compliance with data protection laws and registrar  
> accreditation agreements
>
> 3.       Availability of privacy services
>
> 4.       Demand and motivation for use of privacy services
>
> 5.       Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse
>
> 6.       Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and  
> dispute resolution requests
>
> 7.       WHOIS data accuracy
>
>
>
> You may find it useful to first consider which of the groupings  
> address questions you think that having data about would inform the  
> debate. Once you have identified which questions you want to  
> answer, then you could focus on only those particular groupings and  
> consider which study approach (or combination of approaches) will  
> best answer your questions. In some cases Lorrie has indicated that  
> the different studies answer slightly different questions. In some  
> cases she indicates that some of the approaches are likely to give  
> better data, or that some of the approaches are likely to be less  
> expensive.  When you think about the fundamental questions asked by  
> each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the  
> questions asked by each grouping as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.       How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be  
> solved?
>
> 2.       Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws  
> problem that needs to be solved?
>
> 3.       Are there already market-driven solutions available?
>
> 4.       Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they  
> being used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes?
>
> 5.       Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse?
>
> 6.       Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law  
> enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective?
>
> 7.       Is WHOIS data accurate?
>
>
>
> I note also that several of the proposed studies are being  
> recommended to address questions of WHOIS accuracy and compliance  
> and I have also shared this summary with ICANN’s compliance  
> director and deputy general counsel. They may have further views  
> that we will share as appropriate.  Lastly, if you would find it  
> useful, Dr. Cranor can be available to participate in an upcoming  
> call to discuss the report and answer questions.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Liz
>
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080225/f1e2d86a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25 Feb 2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080225/f1e2d86a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080225/f1e2d86a/attachment-0001.html>