Fwd: [gnso-whois-dt] RE: [council] WHOIS motion from the Whois drafting team for Council consideration
William Drake
william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH
Wed Feb 4 11:26:02 CET 2009
As expected, notwithstanding NCUC's opposition to studies, the process
seems to be crawling forward. The info for today's call is at the
bottom. i'll be on a plane and won't be on the call, Carlos will you?
BD
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: January 29, 2009 10:58:19 PM GMT+01:00
> To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster at icann.org>, "GNSO Council" <council at gnso.icann.org
> >
> Cc: <gnso-whois-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] RE: [council] WHOIS motion from the Whois
> drafting team for Council consideration
>
> Thanks Liz.
>
> All Councilors: Please forward this ASAP to the groups you
> represent for discussion.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> ] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:45 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Cc: gnso-whois-dt at icann.org
> Subject: [council] WHOIS motion from the Whois drafting team for
> Council consideration
>
> All,
>
> Attached and posted on the WHOIS discussion workspace is the draft
> motion that the WHOIS studies drafting team has prepared for Council
> consideration. (This is not for action on today’s Council call).
> See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_references
>
> Although not noted in the attached, staff has a concern about Study
> Group E (studies 3 and 20), which involve RAA provision 3.7.7.3.
> Staff does not believe the studies can be conducted as described in
> the attached, and we have drafted alternative language that we think
> could be the subject of a study of the relevant provision. I can
> elaborate at the appropriate time, but I wanted to flag our concern
> as this language is circulating.
>
> Thanks, Liz
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: February 3, 2009 12:04:13 AM GMT+01:00
> To: <gnso-whois-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] 4 Feb Whois Study DT Meeting Agenda
>
> The proposed 4 Feb Whois Study DT Meeting Agenda is attached and
> copied below. It seems to me that we should be able to accomplish
> what is needed in less than 30 minutes. If any group will not be
> represented in the meeting, please respond to the questions to be
> discussed under agenda items 5 & 6 via this list before our call on
> Wednesday.
>
> Thanks, Chuck
>
>
> Agenda
>
> Start recording
> Welcome
> Roll call
> Review/modify agenda
> Draft Motion for Council
> Refer to motion copied at the end of the agenda.
> Remaining issues:
>
> i. Should we add GAC Data Set 1 to the motion as agreed in our
> last meeting?
> 1. Note that it is not included in the motion copied below.
> 2. Liz’s concerns
> 3. Tim concerns
> 4. Other concerns?
>
> ii. Staff’s concern about study #s 3 and 20, related to RAA
> provision 3.7.7.3.
> 1. Note that these studies are included in the motion copied
> below.
> 2. Staff concerns – Liz
> 3. Other concerns?
>
> iii. Other issues?
> iv.
> Note that the motion copied below was sent to the Council list on 29
> January.
> v.
> Actions: Finalize changes, if any, and resend to Council list if
> necessary.
> Definitions of key study terms
> Any further discussion?
> Should the terms be sent to the Council list?
>
> i. For information only?
>
> ii. For action?
> Next meeting: TBD – depends on Council action
>
>
> GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois
> studies.
>
> Whereas:
>
> In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
> Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable
> understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system
> would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/
> )
>
> Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited
> suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on
> WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/
> ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on
> Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf
> )
>
> On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study
> Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended
> studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost
> estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml
> )
>
> The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further
> studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form
> another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the
> 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the
> GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf
> )
>
> This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and
> to deliver a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG
> delivered its report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg
> #Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).
>
> On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its
> recommendations for consolidating and considering further Whois
> studies. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct08.pdf
>
> On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of
> special meetings on Whois studies, and to solicit further
> constituency views assessing both the priority level and the
> feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed,
> with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed
> for cost and feasibility. The Council would then ask staff to
> perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the Council
> would decide which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri
> Doria convened a volunteer group of Councilors and interested
> constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if
> any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This ‘Whois Study
> Drafting Team’ is tracked on a wiki page at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion
> .
>
> The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data
> requested by the GAC. For each of the consolidated studies,
> constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess
> feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested rankings,
> while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no
> further studies were justified. The GAC was also invited to assign
> priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.
>
> The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest
> average priority scores should be the subject of further research to
> determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. The selection of
> these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration of
> the remaining studies.
>
> Resolved:
>
> Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost
> estimates for the Whois studies listed below, and report its
> findings to Council by [date].
>
> 1) Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2):
>
> Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a
> material number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural
> persons whose registrations do not have a commercial purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html
>
> Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor
> extent to generate spam and other such illegal or undesirable
> activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html
>
> Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses
> caused by public display of Whois. Significant abuses would include
> use of WHOIS data in spam generation, abuse of personal data, loss
> of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html
>
>
> 2) Study 11.
>
> Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois
> records will detract from data accuracy and readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html
>
>
> 3) Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11)
>
> Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is
> increasing when compared with the total number of registrations; b)
> Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the investigation and
> disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other
> sites perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy
> registrations and non-private registrations; c) Domain names
> registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately
> associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as
> compared with non-proxy registrations or non-private registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html
>
> Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by
> proxy/privacy services are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html
>
> GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is
> curtailed or
> prevented by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.
>
> GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or
> privacy services are disproportionately associated with fraud and
> other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy registrations.
>
>
> 4) Group E (Studies 3 & 20)
>
> Study 3 hypothesis: Some registrars are not revealing registrant
> data that is shielded by proxy services when presented with requests
> that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as required
> under RAA 3.7.7.3.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html
>
> Study 20 hypotheses: a. Some proxy and privacy services do not
> promptly and reliably relay information requests to and from actual
> registrants. b. Some proxy and privacy services are failing to
> adhere to RAA 3.7.7.3.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html
>
>
> 5) Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6)
>
> GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who
> are legal entities are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies
> they are natural persons. Furthermore the percentage of registrants
> with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the
> nation or continent of registration.
>
> GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who
> are operating domains with a commercial purpose are providing
> inaccurate Whois data that implies they are acting without
> commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with
> such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation
> or continent of registration.
>
>
> 6) Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10)
>
> Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by
> proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes and not for
> use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html
>
> Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal
> the identity of registrants who use proxy services is directed
> toward registrations made by
> natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html
>
> GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/
> privacy service users are legal persons.
>
> GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains
> that are registered using proxy/privacy services are used for
> commercial purposes.
>
>
>
>
> Council further requests that Staff refer to original study
> submissions (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/
> ), for statements of how study results could lead to an improvement
> in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/
> study needed, including data elements, data sources, population to
> be surveyed, and sample size.
>
> Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates
> for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested
> hypotheses. At any time, Staff may come back to Council with
> questions regarding study hypotheses.
>
> Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to
> GAC representatives once it has been approved.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090204/ed9a672e/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list