[At-Large] Link to MP3 Added - WHOIS Studies

[Alan Greenberg]

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or 
should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue.

Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be 
done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on 
Whois studies.

We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized 
the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can 
begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO 
is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City.

Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate 
prioritize the studies also.

A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, 
Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, 
Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman.

Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer 
point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give 
the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that 
we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below).

The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief 
description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority 
rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO 
constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and 
Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero.  For the Registrars, 
the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies 
should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. 
It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were 
entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or 
any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The 
NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies.

Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated 
the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both 
including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and 
after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the 
process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities 
compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise.

On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater 
than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 
6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be 
recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, 
two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is 
raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome 
(even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others 
that gave non-zero ratings).

I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, 
but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much 
larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies 
are looking at, see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-council-26aug08.pdf.

The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for 
inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning 
to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her.

Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last 
conference call, and the MP3 recording is pointed to at 
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?05_february_2009.

If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them.

Alan