[nc-whois] Edits for Chapter IV
I´m sorry for the delay... Here come my suggestions of how to rephrase
the Summary and the Findings part of chapter IV.
Based on preliminary analysis, the Task Force believes that
cross-cateory consensus among respondent can be identified with respect
to the following points:
- When asked whether registrars should be allowed to engage in resale or
marketing use of whois data, respondent appear to favor opt-in policies,
or not allowing such use at all, over opt-out policies or
unconditionally allowing such use.
- Respondents agree that bulk acess provisions should be maintained in
the gTLD environment.
- Respondents agree that bulk access provisions should be extended to
apply to other TLDs.
As opposed to these rather clear signals, there is a strong signal of
indecision when respondents were asked whether or not to change the bulk
access provisions. Free-form responses of those who suggested such a
change mirror the result from the "resale and marketing" question, and
favor opt-in or stricter policies.
Since the kind of third party data access policy favored by respondents
appears to be different from the one currently implemented in the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a review of that policy which keeps
the survey´s results in mind may be in order.
E. Findings and Discussion of Results
With the exception of the "other" and "not stated" categories of
respondents, no resale or marketing use is preferred over an opt-in
approach to such use. Across all categories, opt-in is preferred over
opt-out, which is in turn preferred over a plain allowance for
registrars to engage in such use.
Across categories, those who suggest op-tin or stricter protection of
data (i.e., answers "opt-in" or "no") represent between 70% and 92% of
those who responded to this question.
The results from this question suggest that there is consensus across
categories of respondents that bulk access provisions should be
maintained in the gTLD environment.
during task force discussions, doubts were raised about how the question
should be interpreted: One member understood it to mean that some kind
of bulk access provisions should be maintained, while a different member
of the task force suggested that the question referred to the specific
bulk access provisions described on the questionnaire. The latter
interpretation would, however, lead to a conflict with the results from
question 17.d. It has also been questioned whether the analysis of the
responses to this question is consistent with the results from question
It appears that there is consensus across categories of respondents
that, whatever bulk access provisions are agreed, if any, they should be
extended to apply to other TLDs.
The same caveats as with question 17.a apply.
As a preliminary finding, it can be stated that majorities of
respondents from the registrar-registry, and the "not stated" categories
have a tendency to welcome advertising from the chosen service provider.
On the other hand, majorities of governmental, commercial, individual,
and ISP respondents stated that they would not welcome such advertising.
While there is certainly no consensus across categories, it is worth
noting that majorities of most of those groups of respondents who would
receive the advertising material would not welcome it, while majorities
of those groups who would send out the material also say that they would
welcome it "as a user".
Taking error margins into account, the yes-no part of this question
leads to an undecided result, or to extrelemey thin majorities in some
of the categories.
The evaluation of the free-form responses which were bgiven by those who
do suggest a change very similar to the results from question 16:
Approximately, 90% of these respondents favor opt-in policies, or no
third party access at all, over opt-out approaches or unlimited access.
(END OF TEXT)
Please send any comments to the mailing list, in plain text.
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <email@example.com>