RE: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April 2008 at 15:00 UTC]
Hello Liz, Having just volunteered for the WHOIS study group and therefore being new to it, I would hate to go back over points that have previously been raised. I would however like to stress the importance of local privacy law compliance for European registrars operating in the gTLD namespaces. On these aspects, it may be useful to the group's work to gain a better understanding of the situation in countries like France. As some of the group members may know, when .FR was opened up to individuals in 2004, there was a legal requirement to make the WHOIS "private" by default. This means that today, the French WHOIS basically functions on two levels: anonymous for individuals and shown for commercial entities. I am happy to provide any feedback or information about the impact of France's private WHOIS system from a registrar's viewpoint. Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM – Noms de domaine / Domain names 124-126, rue de Provence 75008 Paris. France 0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local) De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67 www.indom.com Daily domain name industry news: www.domaines.info Mon blog/My blog : www.stephanevangelder.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: mardi 8 avril 2008 20:56 To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April 2008 at 15:00 UTC] Thanks to all who could make our short-notice kick-off call on WHOIS studies. We will be meeting on Tuesdays at the same time and we have a short window by which to recommend to the GNSO Council areas for further study (if any) on WHOIS (currently due to the Council by 24 April). Following is a short overview of our call, key deliverables for next week and next steps. 1. Overview The group discussed how to proceed. We first discussed whether studies should be commissioned at all, and confirmed that one option could be deciding to recommend to the GNSO Council that no studies of WHOIS be done. This view was supported by some participants who are skeptical that the outcome of any study would change the views of entrenched parties on WHOIS issues. We also discussed certain areas that might be studied further, such as the potential impact on registrars operating in countries with strict privacy laws if those countries were to begin enforcing those laws (in the gTLD space). There was the concern that new WHOIS-related issues will arise that will require consideration notwithstanding the current WHOIS "stalemate", such as issues related to IDNs, greater privacy enforcement by countries, etc..., that may warrant further study. I described the format and content of the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" of Feb. 25, 2008. Note in particular that the study suggestions are grouped into seven topic areas. 1. WHOIS misuse 2. Compliance with data protection laws and registrar accreditation agreements 3. Availability of privacy services 4. Demand and motivation for use of privacy services 5. Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute resolution requests 7. WHOIS data accuracy These seven areas can be thought of as topical questions for further study. If the consensus of the group is to proceed to identify specific areas for further study (meaning rather than recommending that studies not be conducted), the group might find it useful to decide first which of these groupings address questions you think having data about would inform the debate (see Key Deliverables below). There was one question about whether a budget exists to conduct studies. I responded that there is no pre-set budget but there is a place holder in the budget that the policy development group has submitted, and there is the understanding and expectation that the Council may request studies that ICANN would engage in. Also, I noted that there is a gating process -- the Council has specifically noted in its resolutions that it would first identify certain studies that it thought should then be priced out, and then, after those estimates are provided, make any specific requests with those estimates in mind. We also note that costs for various studies could vary significantly based on size, scope, complexity, etc. 2. Key deliverables - Everyone will read the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" - link provided by Glen and below - Everyone will consider the threshold question of whether WHOIS should be studied further -- whether any studies of WHOIS would make a meaningful impact. We will discuss this further on the next call. - Everyone will review the suggestions with an eye to whether/or which proposed studies would rise to your short favorites list -- or those you think should not be done. We did not discuss this on the call, but if the group would like to email these to me ahead of time, say by Friday, I could total up the results of this initial view for the call. Again, as I suggested on the call, to approach the question of which of 25 suggestions you might support, you may find it useful to first consider which of the groupings address questions you think that having data about would inform the debate. Once you have identified which questions you want to answer, then you could focus on only those particular groupings and consider which study approach (or combination of approaches) will best answer your questions. In some cases we have indicated that the different study proposals answer slightly different questions. In some cases we indicate that some of the approaches are likely to give better data, or that some of the approaches are likely to be less expensive. When you think about the fundamental questions asked by each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the questions asked by each grouping as follows: 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be solved? 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem that needs to be solved? 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they being used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? - Staff will check on the status of an earlier study on the economics of the DNS that we understand to have been approved by the ICANN Board but not completed to-date. - Recruit ISP representative -- in process 3. Next steps - Next call Tuesday April 15 (a yucky day in the US, I note) - See tasks listed in "key deliverables" above. - Email with any questions. Also, please feel free to correct or add to my summary. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:15 AM To: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April 2008 at 15:00 UTC] Dear All, Please find the reference documents: 1. the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25f eb08.pdf 2.Addendum http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/addendum-whois-study-suggestion-r eport-27mar08.pdf Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org Attachment:
smime.p7s
|