DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-whois] Whois Survey data please....

I of course agree that the sample should be statistical! MC
-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar A. Robles-Garay [mailto:orobles@nic.mx]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:33 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'YJ Park (MINC)'; Paul M. Kane; WHOIS Committee - DNSO
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Whois Survey data please....

At 09:36 AM 10/7/2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
Folks, let's think about what our request is and what modifications may be
needed to the schedule once we get the data.

I know we can all by annoyed about the delay, but that isn't very
productive. Instead, let's see if we can come up with a strategy which
allows us to get some review done, once we get the data.

I suggested a possible "sample" of perhaps a small number before (maybe we
all read the same 100 and come up with our agreed to framework and format?
-- it's only one idea and I would welcome other suggestions --I didn't see
any response from anyone on that suggestion.

I could agree on you suggestion but let me propose to use a statistical formal sample. I recall (it was many years ago, when I used to be an engineer) there is a formula, depending on the "expected error": 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%. All we need is the total popultation (numbers of survays answered).

Please Paul, could you tell me this number? then I will thell you the number needed for this sample in order to have 5% 1%, 0.5% of expected error.

Let's see if we can do a little online thinking about how we can proceed and
check schedules for MdR meetings, etc in the next few days.

I'm sorry, but the decision to include security and robustness in ICANN meeting at this time is completly non sense, so I say, let's stick with our original plans.

Like Y.J., I've got a full plate with various meetings and want to be sure
that I give sufficient time to this issue as well.

I guess everybody is busy with too many meetings, but we should reschedule for the quality of results.


Y.J. merely raising the issue that we are awaiting data from Louie doesn't
help to address our need to continue planning on what we will do once we get
the data. I am not objecting to updating the NC that we don't have the data,
but do you have some thoughts along the lines of what I proposed which we
could, as a Committee discusss online so we can offer a suggestion for how
we will proceed? Your response to that or some other ideas from anyone else
would be very helpful.

Also, given that 11/12 is tied up already for constituency meetings, and
perhaps the NC, can we also check feasibility of coming in in time to meet

Y.J., your schedule will be pretty challenging, given other commitments you

I can probably arrive Saturday for a p.m. meeting -- what about others?

-----Original Message-----
From: YJ Park (MINC) [mailto:yjpark@minc.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 2:35 AM
To: Paul M. Kane; WHOIS Committee - DNSO
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Whois Survey data please....

Whois Committee members,

Due to no response from Louis yet with repect to Paul's request
made on Oct. 5th, this issue should be raised during the coming
NC teleconference. Since this TF was formed, this TF has been
awaiting the data collected by ICANN.

Your comments will be appreciated regarding this matter.

Thank you,

> Hi Louis
> Here's another request for the WHOIS data from the recent DNSO Survey...
> in the formats we have already discussed.
> I appreciate you and your staff are busy but we need the data in order
> to stay on our fairly tight schedule for evaluating the submissions and
> producing the interim and final report.
> Many thanks
> Paul

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>