RE: [gnso-whois-dt] 4 Feb Whois Study DT Meeting Agenda

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I am traveling all this week and will not be able to make the call
tomorrow. My comments in the questions in the agenda below:

5.i.3. My concerns about the GAC data sets were related to satisfying
the GAC that we were considering their requests. It seemed to me that if
other studies were pursued that touched on the same data then pursuing
those data sets would make sense, and make the GAC happy. That was just
something to consider. I am not entrenched in advocacy of those ideas,
so if my assumptions are not correct, or others feel differently I am
completely fine with that.

5.ii. No input one way or the other as I believe these studies are not
feasible either way in the context of consensus policy.

6.b. The terms should be sent to the Council list, and to Staff for use
in their feasibility and cost analyses of these studies.


Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] 4 Feb Whois Study DT Meeting Agenda
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, February 02, 2009 5:04 pm
To: <gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

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 recordingWelcomeRoll callReview/modify agendaDraft Motion for
CouncilRefer 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 termsAny 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.