Page History

#37

• In LE1, update "effectiveness of WHOIS" to with "effectiveness of WHOIS in meeting the needs of law enforcement".]
• Remove the phrase "and others with a legitimate purpose" and use "cybersecurity and related professionals" instead
• Split second bullet into separate recommendation LE.2 which refers specifically to cybersecurity and related professionals (and explains how this is related to meeting law enforcement needs)

Consider the following items when drafting its subgroup report, proposing any associated recommendations it may develop for RT review: 

1. Geographic distribution of responses to date. Note that Compliance subgroup also found under-representation of global south in WHOIS inaccuracy reports - possible systemic issue?
2. Formulating a recommendation on continuous data gathering to inform future assessment of the effectiveness of WHOIS, as well as future policy development (e.g., ePDP)
3. Possibility of opening the survey to cybersecurity professionals - if not at this point, then in the future. Potentially related to accreditation and criteria that may be applied there. Bylaws mandate is explicitly law enforcement, so results would need to be analyzed separately and not conflated.
4. Possibility of repeating survey between public comment close and final report to allow additional participation and comparison of results; public comment could include a way for interested parties to express interest in participating in next survey (indicating their email address, duty station, geographic region)

Update survey text and share with the subgroup by 12 July, reflecting the following edits:

• Fix typo in all questions involving a range so that the first option refers to less than instead of greater than (for example Q4, <10 should be first option)
• In survey invitation, ask invitees to participate if you now or have ever used WHOIS in performance of your duties... 
• Insert explanation prior to question 3 stating that the next several questions ask about your usage of WHOIS prior to May 2018
• Add to the end of the survey: Ask if their usage of WHOIS has changed since May 2018 - if so, repeat questions 4,5,6,10,11,12 for WHOIS usage since May 2018, plus a general question allowing comment on recent changes to WHOIS
• In questions 10-12, refer to WHOIS prior to May 2018, and then when those questions are repeated refer to current WHOIS (after May 2018)

Investigate to investigate on transparency requirements pertaining to surveys, as subgroups would like the survey link not to appear on review team public lists.

Cathrin to update Update the draft survey based on input received and to share with subgroup.

Staff to provide Provide support for staging draft questions, as the subgroup may request

Cathrin to revise and circulate to the subgroup a draft list of questions

Cathrin to draft Draft survey questions for subgroup to review the questions

Flesh out potential questions for a law enforcement survey

#26

New deadline for survey - August 6 - 23:59 UTC. 

Reopen survey to collect additional responses; defer discussion of results (and issues/recommendations) until final survey close to avoid influencing respondents

On Law Enforcement Survey:

1) refine the WHOIS1 questionnaire to better address law enforcement respondents,

2) develop a refined list of questions to obtain feedback from the RT,

3) stage draft questions in a survey tool such as SurveyMonkey to test the survey,

4) run the same survey before and after GDPR changes to WHOIS

#1

Has your subgroup identified any needed briefings/resources? How will the subgroup conduct its investigation?

• Outreach to LEA contacts to solicit input on needs 
• Possible examples - GAC PSWG, APWG, SSAC members (John Levine)
• Need to structure outreach in a transparent and accessible way
• Start with informal outreach and then consider broader more formalized outreach
• How will subgroup review identified documentation? N/A