ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-whois-study] FW: Your Whois study suggestion

  • To: "gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-whois-study] FW: Your Whois study suggestion
  • From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:36:46 -0700

All, response attached on Milton's hypothesis - this is study suggestion # 6.  
Thanks, Liz

From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 7:12 AM
To: Liz Gasster
Subject: RE: Your Whois study suggestion

The reformulated hypothesis is ok.

-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Gasster

Sent: Tue 8/12/2008 2:41 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Your Whois study suggestion

Hello Milton,

I'm writing about the WHOIS study suggestion 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 suggestion.   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 a reformulated hypothesis for your proposed study with the 
Council, the study group would like to double check with you to give you an 
opportunity to comment on whether the reformulation we developed is consistent 
with your original recommendation.  Following is a cut-and-paste of your 
original hypothesis, as submitted, and the group's reformulation.  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,

Liz Gasster

Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN

Your submitted hypothesis:

ccTLDs that shield some Whois data of natural persons produce no appreciable 
differences in the levels of cybercrime in the domain and do not impair 
enforcement efforts.

Proposed revised hypothesis drafted by GNSO study group:

There is a statistically significant correlation between more restrictive ccTLD 
Whois policies and levels of cybercrime in a domain.


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 WHOIS'; 
  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.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy