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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks much Tim.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:59 AM
> To: gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] 4 Feb Whois Study DT Meeting Agenda
> 
> 
> 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-sugges
> tion-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_hypothes
> es_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. 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>