RE: [nc-whois] Report edits

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Got it, will incorporate tonight. MC

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:12 PM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org; Abel Wisman
Subject: [nc-whois] Report edits


Here comes the list of changes derived from the document which were 
circulated today, and from what was discussed during the phone call.

I. Introduction

Include Marilyn´s edits, completely. I suppose that she´ll provide us 
with a version which will contain the changes suggested by the gTLD 
constituency. Also, I´d suggest that we currently leave out appendices A 
and B, and replace them by references to online versions of the 
tabulation and the original questionnaire.  The original questionnaire 
should be put back online, in all language versions.

Also, I´d like to see the following inserted before the third paragraph 
of Marilyn´s introduction (before "The Preliminary Report"):  "The 
substantial part of this report is organized  into six chapters: Chapter 
II, which deals with User Requirement and Experience (questions 5 - 10), 
Chapter III which deals with Uniformity and Centralization (question 
1-15), Chapter IV, which deals with Resale/Marketing and Bulk Access 
(question 16, 17), Chapter V, which deals with Thied Party Services 
(questions 18, 19), and Chapter VI, which will deal with the Other 
Comments in question 20.  In each of the chapters, we give (after an 
optional summary) the original text from the questionnaire (which is 
typeset in Helvetica).  This is, where needed, followed by a section on 
methodology of evaluation of the questions, and a presentation of the 
results from the survey´s evaluation.  Any needed discussion of these 
results is, along with the findings, presented in another section of 
each chapter."

(I hope that, with that text included, people will find their way around 
the document more easily.)

The next edits should be done to the Statistical Considerations Section 
(I.C):  Move the first paragraph of Section I.D to the beginning of 
Section I.C.  In the end of the old first paragraph of Section.C (... 
categories of resondents), add this text: "Note, however, that for some 
categories of respondents the total number of possible respondents is of 
the same order of magnitude as the number of respondents observed with 
this survey: For instance, there are NNN registrars accredited with 
ICANN, and (with a total of 243 governments on the world) 35 governments 
participating in the GAC."  Note to Karen and Miriam: I´ve left out the 
note you uggested with respect to individuals or commercial entities. 
  It´s rather obvious that these numbers are small when compared to the 
total set of potential respondents, and the statistical problems which 
arise are mostly taken care of by the considerations we already have.

In I.D, replace the cumbersome section which describes the way in which 
the 303 statistical responses were selected by the following text: "The 
selected set of 303 responses contained 10% of the responses received 
from each category of respondents."


II. User Requirements and Experience

In this chapter, please include what Laurence posted, and extend the 
tables as she suggests.

The following caveats should be addressed in this chapter:  Laurence 
still needs to provide details onto her basketing of free-form responses 
to question 5.  These should go into "B Methodology of Evaluation".  Her 
current text can either be put under a separate level-3 heading (as we 
do in the other chapters), or be included alongside the tables.

Particular care is necessary with respect to the numbers quoted by 
Laurence: I seem to understand that these were taken from the ICANN 
tabulation material, i.e., 100% include those respondents who did not 
respond to a particular question.  These numbers must be changed to 
match the ones in the report´s tables.

Finally, I´d suggest a minor change of wording:  In the text on question 
8, please drop "original" from  "original gTLD environment". I suppose 
that´s a bit more politically correct. ;-)

Also, in the table which summarizes the results of question 6, "Int. 
Prop." should be replaced by "Identification". (I´m only noting this 
now, but it matches the question and evaluation text much more closely 
than Int. Prop.)  In that table, it would also be helpful if the maximum 
percentage in each row could be emphasized by putting it into boldface