<<<
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
Liz:
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:
Whereas:
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';
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf>
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
recommendations
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-suggestion-report-10may08.pdf>
for future studies of WHOIS
On 22 May the group of volunteers submitted a report
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-study-group-report-to-council-22may08.pdf>
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.
Resolved:
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
>>>
|