RE: [nc-whois] Report edits
Got it, will incorporate tonight. MC
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:12 PM
To: email@example.com; 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.
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
(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