All,
Here is updated information that reflects the following:
1. Updated ratings of priorities assigned different study suggestions. This spreadsheet contains new data from the ISPs and NCAs. AS mentioned in my previous email, the attached spreadsheet provides the prioritization rankings from each constituency. The study numbers on the far left column refer to the study hypotheses that are described further in the following summary report. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-council-26aug08.pdf. Some studies have been combined (see cross-reference to letters at the bottom of the attached. The GNSO Council would appreciate input both on: 1) your view of level of priority; and 2) your view of level of feasibility, as follows:
a. Review each proposal and assign each a level of priority from 1 (low) to 5 (high) as follows:
Top = 5
Medium high = 4
Medium = 3
Medium low = 2
Low = 1
No study = 0
b. Consider whether each proposed study is feasible to conduct using the following scale: 1 (yes); 0 (don’t know/not sure); and -1 (not feasible)
WHOIS%20studies%20updated%20priorities%2012%20January.xls
2. WHOIS policy update (from my previous email) for background only
3. WHOIS study terminology draft working definitions document: in Cairo the Council decided that it would be helpful to develop “working definitions” of several terms that are being used in the context of Council discussions of possible future studies of WHOIS. The definitions will be used as a guide by those who might be conducting the studies to better understand what is intended by the community when these terms are used in this context. (Please note that the working definitions that have been circulated do not represent the viewpoints or positions of ICANN or ICANN staff.) At the meeting, Council members identified eight terms and asked staff to develop initial working definitions that the Council could use as a starting point for further discussion and definition. Staff solicited input from the constituencies and liaisons and circulated this draft, which has been reviewed and is currently being edited by the GNSO Council. We also researched and reviewed ICANN meeting transcripts, policy and compliance documents and constituency position statements, as well as other reference papers and pulled together a draft based on that input and research. The attached are two documents reflecting next steps on that effort, as follows:
a. I highlighted the key terms in the chart of WHOIS hypotheses: I highlighted each instance in the WHOIS chart of study hypotheses where the terms we are defining are actually used, so that the reader can see the context in which each term is being applied. The chart is simply a cut-and-paste from the final hypotheses list in the GNSO Council’s 26 August WHOIS hypotheses report, to make it easier to see how the terms are used.
b. I updated the list of working definitions distributed back in December, which reflects the following changes: First, I have added the study numbers where each of the terms are actually used so the reader can hopefully more easily find them and read them in context. Second, I want to bring to your attention comments that I’ve added in-line for two of the terms: 1) “undesirable content” which I think should be changed to “illegal or undesirable activities”; and 2) “adequate protective measures”, which is alternately referred to in various hypotheses as “(roughly) effective technical measures”, “effective methods” and “adequate corrective measures”. In my comments I suggest a new, streamlined definition for “illegal or undesirable activities” which we would appreciate input on that comment as well. The other in-line edits are suggestions made by GNSO Council members and other constituency participants on Council WHOIS calls, your comments and further edits are requested and encouraged on all edits and text provided.
The GNSO Council is requesting input on the above by 16 January 2009 so that the input can be considered when the Council meets later this month. Input received following that date would also be appreciated. Please provide edits and comments to policy-staff@icann.org.
Of course I’ll explain all this further on tomorrow’s call, and I’d be glad to answer any questions anyone might have.
Thanks, Liz Gasster
