[gnso-whois-study] draft text to 2 study submitters for your review

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

As per our call today:

Draft note to Claudio diGangi:

Thank you so much for providing alternative wording for the hypothesis for the 
Whois study you suggested.  Our Whois study group met today to review your 
wording.  The group is comfortable with the first two of your four hypotheses, 
but we are concerned that the second two you propose which call for legal 
analysis would be entirely speculative in attempting to determine what legal 
authorities might do if these matters were adjudicated.  We would thus propose 
to include the first two of your hypotheses in our report, but exclude the 
following remaining suggestions, as follows:

c. Legal analysis under a sampling of various national laws suggests
that the methods employed by registrars to disclose and obtain consent
would be adjudicated as violating national law, if adjudicated.

d. In the instance of any national law where hypothesis 3.c. is
validated, there are different methods that registrars could employ that
legal analysis suggests would be adjudicated as consistent with national
law, if adjudicated.


Draft note to Chris Paul:

Thank you so much for providing alternative wording for the hypothesis for the 
Whois study you suggested.  Our Whois study group met today to review your 
wording.  We would like to suggest the following change to your revision:

Some Registrars knowingly tolerate inaccurate or falsified Whois data so as to 
attract and retain registrations by spammers and other bad actors, and do not 
face deterrent consequences for doing so.

Basically we propose substituting the phrase "to attract and retain 
registrations by spammers" for your previous "so as to benefit financially" to 
make clear that while registrars may benefit from more registrations, they may 
not be benefitting financially from the content of spam solicitations.

All suggestions appreciated.  Thanks, Liz