[gnso-whois-dt] RE: ALAC statement

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

I haven't seen it yet.  Liz said she would let us know when it is
finished.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:49 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE:ALAC statement
        
        
        A letter from Paul Twomey posted on the ICANN site, see
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24feb09-en.pdf,
states that the ALAC has finalized its statement on Whois studies.  If
this statement has been posted to this list, I must have missed it.  Can
someone provide a link?  Thank you.
         
        Steve Metalitz  

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:39 PM
        To: gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] 18 Feb Meeting Notes for Whois Study DT
        
        
        Attached and copied below are the Whois Study DT notes for our
meeting this past Wednesday.  Please let me know if I incorrectly
reported anything.
         
        Chuck
         
        Whois Study Drafting Team

         

        Meeting Notes, Wednesday, 18 February 2009

         

        Active Drafting Team Participants

        BC:            Steve DelBianco (for a portion of the meeting)

        IPC:           

        ISCPC:      

        NCUC:      Carlos Souza

        RrC:           Tim Ruiz

        RyC:          Chuck Gomes (Coordinator)

        NomCom:  Avri Doria

        ALAC:       

        GAC:         

        Staff:          Liz Gasster, Glen de Saint Gery

         

        Reference

         

        Whois Study wiki:
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion>  

         

        Agenda

         

        1.      Start recording 
        2.      Welcome 
        3.      Roll call 
        4.      GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected
Whois studies 

                a.      Those on the call approved the edits highlighted
in the motion copied below, which include the edits suggested by Steve
Metalitz on the email list. 
                b.      Liz will accept the edits and forward the motion
to the Council list, asking Councilors to forward it to their respective
groups for discussion prior to the Mexico City Council meeting on 4
March. 
                c.      Chuck will make the motion after the Council
meeting on 19 February. 
                d.      It would be helpful if one of the Councilors on
the drafting team who supports the motion would second it.

        5.      Working Definitions of Whois Study Terms 

                a.      Those on the call supported sending the working
definitions as is along with the motion. 
                b.      It was agreed that the definitions are working
definitions that may be changed as we move forward and as such, the
possible edits proposed by Tim could still be made.

        6.      ALAC input to the Whois Study priorities 

                a.      Liz reported that the ALAC appears to be very
close to being able to provide their input to the Whois Study
priorities. 
                b.      Liz will incorporate their input when it is
received.

        7.      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/ <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/
<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-repor
t-25feb08.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-repor
t-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
<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
<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#Whoi
s_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report
<https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg#whoi
s_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-29oct0
8.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct
08.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
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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
<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 proxy and privacy services
are not revealing  registrant/licensee data that is shielded by proxy
services when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence
of actionable harm, as required to avoid liability under registration
agreement provisions that reflect the requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3 under
RAA 3.7.7.3. 

        http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html>   

         

        Study 20 hypotheseshypothesis: a. Some proxy and privacy
services do not promptly and reliably relay information requests to and
from actual registrants/licensees. 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
<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
<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
<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/
<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.