Re: [bc-gnso] Outcome of Whois studies at GNSO Council meeting today
- To: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx, "bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Outcome of Whois studies at GNSO Council meeting today
- From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:39:34 +0000
Indeed! This type of unified effort is how the multistakeholder process should
work! Glad to hear this report.
RNA Partners, Inc.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:03:56
Subject: [bc-gnso] Outcome of Whois studies at GNSO Council meeting today
As we discussed extensively in Tuesday's BC meeting, there were 2 motions on
Whois studies before GNSO Council today. Here's what happened:
Tim Ruiz withdrew his motion for more information.
Registrars then asked that the BC resolution be deferred to the next meeting.
Zahid described the urgency of these studies, explaining that they are a
consolidation of studies requested by the GAC and by the community. And that
his question on Sunday brought a firm response from GAC Chair: Yes, they are
disappointed that Whois studies they requested in 2008 have not yet begun.
John Berard reiterated his argument for studies to support fact-based policy
Steve DelBianco went to the mic to amplify our Councilors’ points:
At this meeting we have a “Perfect storm” of pressure to begin these Whois
1) AoC Review of WHOIS;
2) KnuJon report on Illicit Privacy-Proxy WHOIS;
3) a reminder to “Mind the GAC” (as the T-Shirt says)
To rebut Tim Ruiz’ point that studies will not change any minds,we explained
that every community study suggestion had to explain policy implications of its
hypothesis. e.g., the Priv/Proxy study #3 had this Hypothesis:
Of ICANN-accredited registrars who offer their own proxy services, some are
failing to reveal shielded registrant data in accordance with the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and/or their own Terms of Service (TOS).
And this “Utility”:
If the hypothesis were verified, ICANN should improve its contractual
compliance efforts for registrars offering proxy services. ICANN's response
should be proportional to the quantity of registrars and affected registrants
where compliance was found to be deficient. If non-compliance is confined to a
small number of registrars, increased contract enforcement efforts could be
limited and targeted. On the other hand, a widespread lack of compliance might
indicate that ICANN should amend the RAA to increase penalties for
To emphasize "Mind the GAC", we read these 2 study requests from the Apr-2008
1: To what extent are the legitimate uses of gTLD WHOIS data curtailed or
prevented by use of proxy or privacy registration services?
11: What is the percentage of domain names registered using proxy or privacy
services that have been associated with fraud or other illegal activity versus
the percentage of domain names not using such services that have been
associated with fraud or illegal activity?
We also responded to Tim Ruiz claim that we already knew there was “some” fraud
and abuse hiding behind privacy/proxy services. Without facts on the
magnitude of abuse, Council would lack data to justify significant compliance
expenses or policy changes.
Jeff Neuman indicated he only wanted to tighten the language for some of the
studies, and proposed a small group to convene before next Council meeting.
Steve DelBianco volunteered for this.
So it's deferred to next Council meeting, with some work left to do before then.