[gnso-whois-study] RE: working GAC questions into our hypothesis table
- To: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-whois-study] RE: working GAC questions into our hypothesis table
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:01:51 -0400
Thanks Steve and Liz. This should greatly faciliate our efforts in our
From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:54 PM
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Gasster
Subject: working GAC questions into our hypothesis table
Liz and I volunteered to take a second look to ensure that we
considered the GAC recommendations in our table/report.
First, we provided a hyperlink to the "GAC Recommendations for
WHOIS Studies" in the wiki, at end of note 2.
See The GAC suggestions can be found at:
Second, Liz copied the two GAC study requests (we called them
the "GAC bullets" last week) as note 4 in the wiki.
Finally, we took a second look at all 15 GAC questions and made
these proposals about GAC 5, 6, and 3 which were previously relegated to
the "other" area:
Eric's proposed hypos for GAC 5, 6, and 3 are technically
correct hypotheses, but they don't convey anything about ICANN policy
implications. So we left Eric's under "OTHER GAC" and we propose
combining GAC 5 and 6 into this one hypothesis, which would then fit in
area 7 (WHOIS data accuracy):
GAC 5 and 6: A significant percentage of Registrants who
operate domains with commercial purposes are providing inaccurate Whois
data that implies they are natural persons without commercial purposes.
Furthermore, the percentage of registrants with inaccuracies will vary
significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.
We propose this GAC 3 language into Area 1 (WHOIS Misuse):
GAC 3: There are technical measures available that would
effectively curtail misuse of data published on WHOIS databases while
preserving legitimate use and open access to the databases.
--Steve and Liz