ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-whois-study] Updated hypotheses attached

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] Updated hypotheses attached
  • From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:12:33 -0700

This might need a grammatical tweak or two to fit the audience, but here it is, 
with pasted resolution below.  I've been tailoring each one with the original 
proposed hypotheses applicable to that submitter.  Most have been sent out 

I'm writing about the WHOIS study suggestions that you submitted to ICANN's 
GNSO earlier this year (back in February).  First, thank you so much for taking 
the time to offer your thoughtful suggestions.   Following the public comment 
period during which you responded, the GNSO Council convened a small study 
group to consider the suggestions that were offered and to begin the process of 
evaluating which studies should be pursued.  Prior to selecting which studies 
should be further assessed for cost, feasibility, and related considerations, 
the Council asked the study group to review each study submission, restate each 
one so as to present them in a consistent and concise format, and focus on the 
factual data that the study, if completed,  would provide.  The text of the 
most recent GNSO Council resolution forming the study group is copied below for 
your reference.

Before sharing reformulated hypotheses for your proposed studies with the 
Council, the study group would like to double check with you to give you an 
opportunity to comment on whether the reformulations we developed are 
consistent with your original recommendations.  Following is a cut-and-paste of 
your original hypotheses, as submitted, and the group's reformulations.  We 
would very much appreciate hearing back from you by Wednesday 20 August.  We 
recognize that this is short window for responses, especially during vacation 
season, so if you are unable to respond in the time allowed, we would still 
like your input and we will try to factor in your thoughts once we receive them.

Thanks and best regards,


WHOIS motion as amended, 25 June, 2006, passed unanimously by the GNSO Council:


On 27 March 2008 the 
Council<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml> resolved to 
form a group of volunteers to review and discuss the 'Report on Public 
Suggestions on Further Studies of 
 develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff 
will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and deliver the list of 
recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008

On 16 April the Government Advisory Committee submitted to the ICANN Board 
 for future studies of WHOIS

On 22 May the group of volunteers submitted a report 
 to the Council offering two opposing viewpoints on whether studies of WHOIS 
should be conducted

There was not agreement in the Whois Studies volunteer group regarding whether 
or not any studies should be conducted.

Before finalizing a decision regarding whether any studies should be conducted, 
it should be useful to

1) understand the full set of hypotheses to be tested,
2) determine which of those hypotheses, if tested, might provide useful 
direction with regard to Whois policy, and
3) to ensure that the collection of hypotheses adequately cover alternative 
view points with regard to Whois policy.


To reconvene another group of volunteers, which may include members of the 
earlier group and/or new volunteers to:

Review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and 
the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and that 
request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses.
Deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the 
Council within 6 weeks.
The Council will then decide whether any potential studies should be further 
considered, and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the staff to 
determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames 
for testing.

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Brendler, Beau; Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] Updated hypotheses attached

Also, we will want to send a clean version, not a red-lined version.  I can 
easily create that once we have the intro message.


From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:06 PM
To: 'Brendler, Beau'; Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] Updated hypotheses attached
It is fine with me but I think that it would be best if it is distributed with 
an introductory message similar to what Liz is going to include in her email to 
the study proprosers.  I think all of us should feel free to submit the latest 
version to our consituencies with an introductory message.  My motive here is 
to make sure everyone who sees this clearly understands what our task was and 
what the steps are going forward.

Liz - If you will send me the message you are going to send to study proposers, 
I will adapt it for this group to use with their constituencies.

Thanks, Chuck

From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:52 PM
To: Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] Updated hypotheses attached


Apologies for dropping out for so long and not contributing anything.

May I ask permission to distribute this most recent summary of hypotheses to 
the ALAC for discussion/education?


Beau Brendler

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Liz Gasster
Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 12:31 PM
To: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-study] Updated hypotheses attached


Attached please find the updated hypotheses based on today's discussion.  They 
have also been updated on the wiki at:  

Please let me know ASAP if you have any corrections or concerns.  As promised, 
later today I will be reaching out to each of those who submitted hypotheses to 
solicit their comments/ concerns to our restated versions.

Thanks, Liz




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy