Re: [bc-gnso] Outcome of Whois studies at GNSO Council meeting today

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed! This type of unified effort is how the multistakeholder process should 
work! Glad to hear this report. 

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:03:56 
To: bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
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 
development.

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 
studies:
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 
non-compliance.

To emphasize "Mind the GAC", we read these 2 study requests from the Apr-2008 
GAC Letter:
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.