[gnso-whois-study] working GAC questions into our hypothesis table

["Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf.

 

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