RE: [gnso-whois-study] 15 April WHOIS call review and next steps

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

No further studies are warranted at this time. I don't believe anything
new will be learned by the suggested studies, nor anything that will
change the entrenched opinions of the various stakeholders. So I prefer
not to give a list of preferences or priorities, but will share some
principles that I feel are important if it is decided that studies
should be pursued.
 
Some of the suggested studies may have value from a compliance
perspective. If the goal is to identify where compliance with existing
policy is weak, and possibly recommend procedures, sanctions, or
enhancements to existing policy specifically to improve compliance, then
those studies should be framed accordingly in its statement of work.
 
Any studies that are pursued should be kept narrow in scope to ensure
completion within a reasonable time frame - weeks or months, not years.
And some preliminary work should be done to ensure that the data being
sought is actually available, can be effectively gathered, and that any
parties from which it is sought will cooperate.
 
Many of the studies, if pursued, should have certain terms clearly
defined in order to focus the effort appropriately. For example, in the
GAC recommendations the following terms are used:
 
-- Commercial, non-Commercial
-- Proxy and privacy services
-- Legitimate use
-- Abusive use
 
No study on such concepts can be effectively pursued without first
having an agreed upon understanding of what those concepts mean.

 
Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-whois-study] 15 April WHOIS call review and next steps
From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 17, 2008 11:48 am
To: "gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>

All,
 
Thanks so much to those who were able to participate on Tuesday's call,
and especially to those who contributed initial views on suggested
priority levels for various study options.  Following is a short
overview of the call and next steps agreed to by the group:
 
1. Call overview:
 

+ The group discussed getting more information on what would be required
to implement the IRIS protocol from both a technical and policy
perspective, Liz will follow up on this for the next call
+ The group discussed whether any studies on WHOIS should be conducted. 
4 participants think that more studies of WHOIS will not break the
current impasse.  Roughly nine participants think certain studies of
WHOIS would be very useful and could provide new insights and
information.  This group thinks several of the studies are finely
targeted and carefully crafted to ask new questions and elicit new
insights.
+ Beau Brendler briefed the group on an upcoming survey of WHOIS
questions that his group is soliciting as part of a broader survey of
New Yorkers on Internet consumer issues.  They intend to publish their
results by June.
+ Wendy and Danny recommend sunsetting current WHOIS requirements
currently applicable in RAA and registry contracts in the absence of
consensus -- to make the issue compelling and generate increased
motivation to find consensus
+ We did not talk in detail about the specific studies in a systematic
way on this call, though several study proponents described how their
proposals would provide useful additional insights in their judgment. 
Steve Del Bianco emphasized the importance of the first three study
proposals in this context.

 
2. Next steps:
 

+ Liz will update the summary to pull the policy goals identified for
each proposed survey into the text so they can be easily identified -
though I might try another format for this, to be determined.
+ Each participant will send TO THE WHOLE LIST PLEASE your rank order
preferences for further studies of WHOIS - please rank each of the 7
categories of studies, not the individual studies, by top preference to
lowest.  We will consider the individual studies in a future round. 
Please send to the list by Monday AM to give us all a chance to review
by the next call.  
+ We need to provide an update to the Council on our progress following
the next call.  It is my educated guess that we will not finish on
Tuesday, so we need to provide an estimate of when we think we will be
done.  Let's plan to agree on recommending a new date on the next call. 
I'll suggest May 22 (4 more weeks) to throw out a date for discussion,
but I'm glad to try to do faster. 
+ Liz - IRIS follow up 

 
Please let me know if I've missed anything and also feel free to add
additional comments, emphasis...
 
Next call is at the some time, April 22, per earlier email from Glen.
 
Thanks, Liz