GNSO Council motion to pursue cost
estimates of selected Whois studies.
Whereas:
In
Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded
that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual
issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy
development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/
)
Before defining the details of these studies, the Council
solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on
WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/
) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of
WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf
)
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study
Working Group to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for
which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml
)
The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further
studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of
volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on
Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf )
This WG was tasked to prepare a
list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its
report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. (https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report
).
On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry
constituency circulated its recommendations for consolidating and considering
further Whois studies. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct08.pdf
On 5 November 2008 the GNSO
Council decided to convene a series of special meetings on Whois studies, and to
solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the
feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal
of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility.
The Council would then ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that
assessment, the Council would decide which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a
volunteer group of Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a
resolution regarding studies, if any, for which cost estimates should be
obtained. This ‘Whois Study Drafting Team’ is tracked on a wiki page at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion.
The Whois Study Drafting Team
further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC. For each of the consolidated studies,
constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and assess feasibility. 5 constituencies provided the requested
rankings, while 2 constituencies (NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further
studies were justified. The GAC was
also invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of
22-Jan-2009.
The Drafting Team determined that
the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject
of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. The
selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration of
the remaining studies.
Resolved:
Council requests
Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for the Whois
studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as possible, noting that Staff need not
fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the requirements
in stages.
1)
Group A
(Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2):
Study 1 hypothesis: Public access
to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number of cases of misuse that have
caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not have a commercial
purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html
Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois
database is used only to a minor extent to generate spam and other such illegal
or undesirable activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html
Study 21 and GAC data set 2
hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by public display of Whois.
Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam generation, abuse of
personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of
data. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html
2)
Study
11.
Study 11 hypothesis: The use of
non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will detract from data accuracy and
readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html
3) Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1
& GAC 11)
Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number
of proxy registrations is increasing when compared with the total number of
registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the investigation
and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other sites
perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and
non-private registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy
services are disproportionately associated with phishing, malware, and other
electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations or non-private
registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html
Study 17 hypothesis: The majority
of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for abusive and/or
illegal purposes.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html
GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The
legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or
prevented by the use of proxy and
privacy registration services.
GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain
names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately
associated with fraud and other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy
registrations.
4) Group E (Studies 3 &
20)
Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and
privacy services are not revealing registrant/licensee data when presented with
requests that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as required to
avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that reflect the
requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html
Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy
and privacy services do not promptly and reliably relay information requests to
and from registrants/licensees.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html
5) Group C (GAC Studies 5 &
6)
GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A
significant percentage of registrants who are legal entities are providing
inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons. Furthermore the
percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly
depending upon the nation or continent of registration.
GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A
significant percentage of registrants who are operating domains with a
commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are
acting without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants
with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the nation or
continent of registration.
6) Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9
& GAC 10)
Study 18 hypothesis: The majority
of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services are used for commercial
purposes and not for use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html
Study 19 hypothesis: A
disproportionate share of requests to reveal the identity of registrants who use
proxy services is directed toward registrations made by
natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html
GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing
and significant share of proxy/privacy service users are legal persons.
GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing
and significant share of domains that are registered using proxy/privacy
services are used for commercial purposes.
Council further requests that
Staff refer to original study submissions (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/
), for statements of how study results could lead to an improvement in Whois
policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/study needed,
including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample
size.
Staff is invited to pursue
creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including
re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses. At any time, Staff may come back to
Council with questions regarding study hypotheses.
Council further requests that
Staff communicate the resolution to GAC representatives once it has been
approved.