RE: [gnso-whois-study] Draft of Note 3
Note 3 at the beginning of the table could read: Further work regarding some of these proposed studies should include consultation with ICANN contract compliance staff to minimized overlap or duplication with their work. Steve ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] Agenda for 5 August Whois Hypotheses Group Call Not that I know of. ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:21 AM To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] Agenda for 5 August Whois Hypotheses Group Call Thanks Steve. Am I correct in assuming that no further information has been provided about the contract negotiations or resulting study? Chuck ________________________________ From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:15 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] Agenda for 5 August Whois Hypotheses Group Call The following excerpt from ICANN's semi-annual contract compliance report released last week is relevant to Area #7, agenda item 5a. The full document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/contractual-compliance-audit- report-29jul08-en.pdf. Steve E. Whois Data Accuracy Study PURPOSE OF THE STUDY With the goal of providing useful information to ICANN constituencies and the Internet community regarding Whois data accuracy, ICANN launched a Whois Data Accuracy Study in November 2007. The Whois Data Accuracy Study was designed to assess, with a standard degree of accuracy, the percentage of Whois data accuracy that exists within a representative sample of the gTLD population. This is the first study of this type to be conducted by ICANN. To allow sufficient time to complete planning, execution and analysis of findings, it is estimated that the study will take approximately 12 to 15 months to complete PROGRESS With the assistance of a statistician, ICANN developed a sampling plan to extract a representative sample of domain names from the gTLD population. As part of the sampling plan, an algorithm was developed to determine the appropriate sample population size - one that provided acceptable accuracy and certainty levels. ICANN selected a sample from an infinitely large data base that provided a measure of accuracy to +/- 5% with a certainty of 95%. Next, staff randomly selected domain names in accordance with statistical sampling practices. After randomly selecting a representative sample population of domain names and determining that the representative sample includes domain names with addresses in approximately 45 countries, staff commenced the process of clearly defining the methodology to verify the accuracy of each domain name Whois data set. After completing a trial Whois data accuracy verification process for a small number of domain names, staff's results indicated a number of issues to be addressed in the actual survey. Additionally, staff documented several obstacles that made it extremely difficult to verify the accuracy of names and addresses. In the interest of providing reliable and useful information regarding Whois data accuracy, it was determined that a credible entity with significant experience conducting name and address verifications should be consulted before continuing. Accordingly, ICANN staff undertook a search to find institutions that provide name and address verification services. After developing and transmitting a needs statement, ICANN received proposals from several companies that purported to provide name and address verification services and/or research analysis services. Staff is in advanced discussions with one organization. NEXT STEPS ICANN is engaged in contract negotiations with a highly respected research institution to collaborate in developing a sampling plan and multi-stage methodology to determine the accuracy of the Whois data across all gTLDs. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:41 PM To: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-whois-study] Agenda for 5 August Whois Hypotheses Group Call Attached and pasted below is the Agenda for our next Whois Hypotheses Group Call on 5 August. Chuck Meeting Agenda for Whois Hypotheses Group 5 August 2008 15:00 UTC [08:00 PDT (California), 10:00 CDT (Cedar Rapids), 11:00 EDT Washington DC), 16:00 BST (London), 17:00 CEST (Brussels)] Note: The meeting will be recorded. References: Wiki: https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg <https://st.icann.org/whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?whois_hypotheses_wg> Summary of public suggestions: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/whois-hypoth-wg/attachments/whois_h ypotheses_wg:20080709221045-0-19696/files/WHOIS-study-suggestion-reportw ith%20GAC%20%202008%20original%20hypotheses%208%20July.doc <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/whois-hypoth-wg/attachments/whois_ hypotheses_wg:20080709221045-0-19696/files/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report with%20GAC%20%202008%20original%20hypotheses%208%20July.doc> 1. Welcome 2. Roll call (Glen) 3. Agenda approval 4. Follow-up discussion on the following (if needed) and finalization of the hypotheses for: a. Area 5: Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse (#6, #13, GAC #11, GAC #1, GAC #2) b. Area 6: Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute resolution requests (#3, #20, Metalitz comment, #12) 5. Continue developing hypotheses: a. Area 7: Whois data accuracy (#8, # 11) [Note that James provided draft hypotheses that are in the table on the wiki.] b. Area 8: Other GAC recommendations (GAC #1, GAC #5, GAC #6, and GAC #3) [Note that Eric Brunner-Williams provided draft hypotheses that are in the table on the wiki.] 6. Develop action plan with timelines for sending full set of hypotheses to those who proposed the studies for their feedback. 7. Next meeting: Tuesday, 5 August 2008, 15:00 UTC (This may be changed depending on 6 above.) 8. Action items a. Chuck: Prepare and distribute meeting recap NLT 30 July b. All: Review the hypotheses developed for Areas 7 & 8 and provide any comments on the list before (insert deadline). c. Liz: 1. Prepare and distribute list of completed hypotheses NLT 30 July 2. Prepare final document with all proposed hypotheses and introductory information. d. Glen: Send final document to those who proposed the studies for their feedback with a response deadline of (insert date).