RE: [gnso-whois-dt] revised "working definitions" for WHOIS study terminology

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

With apologies for having missed yesterday's call: 
 
In order to review these, don't the reviewers have to see how these
phrases are used in context in the study proposals?  At least some
examples would need to be given, I think, so that reviewers could see
why it matters whether a phrase is defined in one way or the other. This
does not need to be exhaustive, but without this context this is a very
abstract exercise.   E.g., study 19 uses both the phrases "natural
persons" and "proxy/privacy services" so the proposed definitions need
to be read in that context.  
 
Could the document be expanded to provide these examples of use?  
 
Thanks
 
Steve Metalitz

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:51 PM
To: gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] revised "working definitions" for WHOIS study
terminology



All,

 

As promised on yesterday's call, attached is a revision to the "working
definitions" of certain terms used in proposals for future studies of
WHOIS.  The redline edits reflect changes suggested by call
participants.  For those who may have missed yesterday's call, in Cairo
the Council decided that it would be helpful to develop "working
definitions" of several terms that are being used in the context of
Council discussions of possible future studies of WHOIS.  The
definitions will be used as a guide by those who might be conducting the
studies to better understand what is intended by the community when
these terms are used in this context.  (Please note again that the
working definitions that have been circulated  do not represent the
viewpoints or positions of ICANN or ICANN staff.)  At the meeting,
Council members identified eight terms and asked staff to develop
initial working definitions that the Council could use as a starting
point for further discussion and definition. On yesterday's call, the
Council also urged constituencies and advisory committees to review and
provide further input on this working draft and staff will also be
circulating this revision to the constituency/liaison lists.  

 

The Council is requesting input by 16 January in preparation for the
Council's next scheduled discussion of WHOIS on 21 January and likely
Council action on 29 January.  

 

Regarding the attached revision, I noticed following yesterday's call
that one of the terms that the Council identified for preparation of a
working definition, "undesirable content" is a bit different from the
term actually used in various study proposals, which refer to  the term
"illegal or undesirable activities".  (Please see study suggestion #s 14
and 15 as examples.) The Council may want to consider developing a
working definition instead for "illegal or undesirable activities",
which may be more accurately what is intended by those study proponents.
Some aspects of the existing definition may still be relevant to
defining "illegal or undesirable activities".  Please let me know as
soon as possible if you think a change should be made to that
phrase/definition and I can solicit views on the other lists
accordingly.

 

Thanks!  Liz