RE: [gnso-rap-dt] actions from 6 July RAPWG meeting

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

I would like to provide updated information to this group about the WHOIS 
studies, and specifically the Study Hypothesis Group.  The work of the WHOIS 
hypothesis group was quite narrow and is now complete, it was a short-term 
drafting team to whose work fed into the decision made by the GNSO Council in 
March to ask staff to determine costs and feasibility to conduct multiple 
studies on six broad areas of WHOIS.  Here is a link to the resolution approved 
by the GNSO in March:  http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903

Separately, the Council voted in May to request an additional study, to compile 
service requirements for WHOIS based on current requirements and previous 
policy discussions.

The Policy staff is now engaged in developing the costs/feasibility to conduct 
these studies, including developing RFPs on several study areas to solicit 
estimated costs.  This process is estimated to take several months.  Then the 
Council will work with ICANN to decide which studies should then be conducted. 
There is currently no policy development work occurring with regard to WHOIS.

Please let me know if you have questions or would like further information.

Thanks, Liz


Liz Gasster
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN






From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:37 AM
To: 'Frederick Felman'; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] actions from 6 July RAPWG meeting

Thanks for your note, Fred.  The group agreed that the interplay between WHOIS 
issues and registration abuse is important and should be discussed.  I think 
the issue is whether RAPWG should try and research or "resolve" WHOIS issues, 
given that the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group has apparently been given that job. 
 Depending on what it is, fact-finding could duplicate work already being done 
in the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group.

In such cases where there are scope questions, we have the option of querying 
the Council for clarification and possible charter amendments.  Scope issues 
also affect our timelines, and we are obligated to keep the Council informed as 
to scheduling.  I will draft a note to be sent to the Council, and circulate it 
on the WG list for comment.

All best,
--Greg


________________________________
From: Frederick Felman [mailto:ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:09 PM
To: gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] actions from 6 July RAPWG meeting

Dear Greg:

Thanks for the considered response.  We are not members or participants in the 
WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group.

Regardless of the other groups charter and findings, it is incumbent upon this 
group to discuss the interplay between accuracy and availability WHOIS data and 
registration abuse. WHOIS inaccuracy is endemic to cybersquatting and other 
types of registration abuse and indeed may be abuse in its own right. It is 
also not outside the scope of this Group to gather facts and define terms 
around this pervasive issue.

In fact the stated objective of the working group is:

"... to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and 
definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable 
the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on 
registration abuse"

Simply talking about other abuse and stepping around this issue leaves it 
unresolved and unaddressed. Let's not hamper our ultimate recommendations to 
the GNSO by restricting the scope of discussions.  I would recommend that we 
include it as a type of registration abuse and gather more facts around this 
issue and determine later how it must be addressed.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred


PS - Does the inclusion of  "gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx" mean that this note goes to 
all members of the RAPWG?  If so, Faisal has not been included in the 
distribution.  If not, what is that address?


On 7/7/09 1:16 PM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Fred:

Thanks for your note.  The approach discussed yesterday allows the RAPWG to 
give examples and highlight the interrelations. Is that what you are interested 
in?  Or are you also interested in having the RAPWG make WHOIS recommendations?

The two times that RAPWG has discussed WHOIS, the consensus was that 
duplicating WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group efforts would not be a good use of our 
time.  The reasoning was that the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group is the 
fundamental community effort to examine WHOIS abuse and the related 
registration issues.  The WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group is focused on topics 
including: how WHOIS is related to spam, cybercrime, and identity theft; issues 
posed by proxy contact services; WHOIS compliance problems; privacy needs, etc. 
 So it seems to address major concerns.  The WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group is 
also the product of several years of wrangling.  (I thought Jeff Neuman gave a 
pretty good summary yesterday of the long history of those efforts.)

The RAPWG had consensus yesterday that it can include examples and background 
in its report when WHOIS issues are a factor in other abuse issues.  So if we 
want to, we can do that; issues are sometimes interrelated.

So this seems like a sensible and balanced approach to me - it allows the RAPWG 
to make relevant comment, leaves the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group to its 
carefully created ambit, and allows the RAPWG to focus on the many other issues 
we have identified.  I suggest that RAPWG not try to make WHOIS recommendations.

Your thoughts?

Is MarkMonitor participating in the WHOIS Study Hypotheses Group?

All best,
--Greg


________________________________

From: Frederick Felman [mailto:ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 4:59 PM
To: gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] actions from 6 July RAPWG meeting

Greg -

First - I apologize for being late to the call today.

Second, with respect to whois, I am more in agreement with Mike Rodenbaugh than 
with those that stated they'd like to completely relegate whois issues to 
another group.  Nearly all registration abuse is related to whois issues, all 
enforcement of such is predicated in some way upon whois, and, to a large 
degree the reason we suffer recidivists in registration abuse is due to whois.

At minimum we need to relate to the broader community the damage caused by 
whois abuse as well as the part a better, more accurate & complete whois can 
help mitigate registration abuse.  Therefore underscoring the importance of the 
whois issue relative to what we are charged to solve.

Do you mind if we revisit briefly at the next meeting?

 - Fred



On 7/6/09 11:34 AM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Action items for follow-up.  As always, goal is to get discussion going on the 
group list, and material up on the wiki, to make progress before our next 
teleconference on 20 July.


 *   Cybersquatting sub-group (Fred Felman, Mike Rodenbaugh, James Bladel, 
Michael Young, Paul Stahura, Phil Corwin): work on the definition and post a 
note to the group when the material is up on the wiki.  Group to look at and 
discuss on the list before meeting of July 10.  Definition may need to take 
into account the ACPA factors.
 *   Cybersquatting: Marika Konings to add to the doc the list of possible 
recommendations/solutions that were mentioned in today's call.
 *   We now have a subgroup on 'uniformity in contracts' composed of volunteers 
Mike O'Connor, Berry Cobb, Marika Konings, and Mike Rodenbaugh.  Other who were 
not on today's call are also invited to volunteer.
    *   The job of this group is to lead the discussion and investigation of 
the WG charter questions:  "Understand if registration abuses are occurring 
that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse 
policies were established... Determine if and how {registration} abuse is dealt 
with in those registries {and registrars} that do not have any specific 
{policies} in place. Identify how these registration abuse provisions are {...} 
implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing registration abuse."
    *   Berry has been collecting registrar-registrant agreements.
 *   WHOIS: Greg Aaron to send around links about the GNSO WHOIS Study 
Hypotheses Group.  Today RAPWG confirmed agreement that WHOIS is a large topic 
(with much history) that should continue to be tackled via the WHOIS Study 
Hypotheses Group effort already underway.  RAPWG will therefore not attempt to 
tackle WHOIS as an abuse topic, but always have the option of noting in our 
report when WHOIS issues are a factor in other abuse issues and how.


All best,
--Greg


**********************************
Greg Aaron
Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security
Afilias
vox: +1.215.706.5700 x104
fax: 1.215.706.5701
gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
**********************************
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential 
and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.