[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

My comments are in line. Thank you for all the work that you are doing. You
are AMAZING!

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  For clarity, I am just extracting the parts that I am replying to.
>
>
> At 04/09/2012 06:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>  Recommendation1: To make Whois a Strategic Priority
> The commissioning of the Review by ICANN is an indication of the strategic
> importance and manner in which the Review Team was constituted. However,
> ICANN needs to  monitor and evaluate the implementation process. As far as
> the GNSO is concerned they have following advice from the GAC undertaken to
> do four studies namely the Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy and Privacy
> Abuse; Whois Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and
> Reveal Study which the Report says is due for completion in 2012. I am not
> sure what the status of the Studies are but I can only hypothesize that to
> the extent that this would affect existing consensus Policies, then parts
> of the PDP may apply. However, if the existing consensus policies address
> in principle areas that may require a PDP process then we should be open to
> that. I understand that this may be a negligible caveat.
>
>
> It is correct that addressing the substantive Whois issues may well
> require (well, almost surely require) GNSO policy development, that is not
> the subject of this Rec. It is solely that the ICANN go on records as
> saying it is important and conveying that message out to the GNSO as well
> as other parts of the wider ICANN community.
>
> By the way, do you know when in 2012 the studies are due to be completed.
> I would be most interested in reading the Reports.
>
>
> Don't off-hand know.  Would have to do some research first.
>
> I would be grateful.
>
>  Recommendation 9 Data Accuracy: Track Impact of Whois Data Reminder
> Policy and Possible Replacement
>
> The Report clearly outlines the fact that the Whois Data Reminder Policy
> so without a doubt there is need to review and revise the Policy. I would
> say, yes GNSO much initiate discussions. To save time there may be things
> within the Reminder Policy that do not need to be debated again although
> there is always the exception. There are many models of doing things and
> Registrars can select what works for them and it would help to at least
> outline a few generic ones. At the moment, I can deduce that the focus has
> been based on the actual "data" and if one methodology does'nt work, there
> should be enough innovation to suggest alternative methods that can be
> either customer centric or otherwise.
>
>
> The current WDRP is a Consensus Policy and as such must be adhered to by
> registrars. The report suggest that we first try to develop metrics to
> gauge's its effectiveness. If that is not possible, or implicitly if the
> metrics say it is not effective, a new policy shouldbe developed.
>
> This Report very bluntly mentions the failure of the WDRP. In terms of
> metrics, I would have thought that the NORC study would have teased these
> out already.
>
>
> The NORC study is looking at Whois accuracy, not how it changes over time
> with respect to WDRP. These days, we try to make sure that when a new
> policy is implemented, we can get some metrics to track it (not always
> possible of course). When the WDRP was put in place, we had no such
> concept. So registrars send out the notices and registrants get them, but
> we do not know how many registrants adjust their Whois info in response to
> the reminder. That is the thrust of the recommendation.
>
> Thanks Alan - makes sense.

> Alan
>



-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851