RE: [nc-whois] Consolidated comments on draft interim report
Thanks for your comments, Steve. I have no problems with any of the
edits you propose.
Steve Metalitz wrote:
> From: Steve Metalitz <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Consolidated comments on draft interim report
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:41:26 -0500
> TO: Whois Task Force members
> FM: Steve Metalitz
> RE: Comments on draft interim report
> DT: 3/6/02
> I hope that these comments are still timely and appreciate what can be done
> at this point to incorporate them. I regret having to miss the conference
> call yesterday so if any of these points were resolved there please ignore.
> Thanks to all drafters for their excellent contributions under very short
> 1. Thomas' draft circulated Saturday night (March 2)
> Two general comments. First, in several places, grand totals are missing
> from the charts. E.g., page 6, dealing with question 4. While the
> breakdown by category is useful, the grand total including all responses can
> also be significant. Second, in some charts the responses are presented in
> alphabetical order rather than logical order. This may be confusing. For
> example, on page 5, the responses on question 3 as to how often respondents
> use Whois is presented in the following order: not
> stated/daily/hourly/never/occasionally/weekly. A more logical presentation
> order would be: hourly/daily/weekly/occasionally/never/not stated (or the
> opposite, which is the way it was presented in the survey). Another example
> is question 9 (the order should be: essential/desirable/valueless, or vice
> Regarding chapter IV (questions 16 & 17): I gather this was discussed at
> length on the call and I see that Thomas has proposed some new language
> which I will review below rather than providing my comments on the
> original text.
> 2. Introduction (draft circulated by Marilyn)
> Again, I know this was discussed on the call and according to Thomas'
> post-call memorandum, approved in full. Did anyone have any concerns about
> the characterization of the Task Force terms of reference in the second
> paragraph under "History and Mission"? There is a close quote at the end of
> this paragraph but I don't know from what document the quote is taken. I
> believe the following might be a more complete summary, based on the
> archival material already posted in
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00193.html and
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00190.html: "to consult
> with the community with regard to establishing whether a review of ANY
> QUESTIONS RELATING TO ICANN's WHOIS policy is due, AND IF SO TO RECOMMEND A
> MECHANISM FOR SUCH A REVIEW." I also think that this should not be
> presented as a quote since in fact it is a paraphrase.
> 3. Chapter II
> I fully support what Laurence posted on this prior to the call. I will work
> with her on responding to the points Thomas makes in the first paragraph of
> his "caveats" from his post-call memo. Thomas is correct (in his second
> caveat) that the numbers in this submission are taken from the October 2001
> tabulation and need to be conformed to the grand totals as presented in the
> interim report (such grand totals were not presented in the March 2 draft,
> as noted above). I am not sure about the political sensitivity involved in
> his third caveat regarding the wording of the text relating to question 8.
> The phrase "original gTLD" is meant to refer to .com/net/org; the data
> elements made available to the public in Whois are in fact slightly
> different in some of the new gTLDs, so if this phrase is objectionable we
> should either state ".com/net/org" or else come up with a different phrase.
> 4. Chapter III (gTLD Registry redline text sent after the conference
> At several points, reference is made to percentages drawn from the grand
> totals (e.g., regarding question 15). None of these grand totals appears in
> the document circulated by Thomas, so they should be added in accordance
> with the first general comment in the preceding section.
> Regarding question 14a, the second line should read, "supported centralizing
> ACCESS TO the Whois databases..." (new language in CAPS). Clearly the
> databases themselves need not necessarily be centralized. In the same
> paragraph, the second sentence (beginning on the fourth line) should begin,
> "The categories of respondents IN which THE LARGEST MINORITY rejected
> centralized access [most significantly] were...". (New language in CAPS,
> deletions in [brackets].) None of these categories rejected centralized
> 5. Chapter IV
> I propose the following revisions (using the same conventions as above re
> additions and deletions) to the draft Thomas circulated this afternoon. I
> just do not think that the responses to question 17(a) are ambiguous. The
> survey recites the current gTLD policies and then asks, "Do you think that
> THESE PROVISIONS should be maintained in the gTLD environment?" (emphasis
> added) I believe the responses are quite clear, if quite contradictory to
> the answers given to 16. I do not have any disagreement with the bottom
> line but I think we are better off noting the contradiction rather than
> saying that an unambiguous response is ambiguous. I know that not everyone
> agrees with this reading and I am comfortable noting the different readings
> in the text of the report.
> Begin edit:
> Based on preliminary analysis, the Task Force believes that
> cross-cateGory consensus among respondentS 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 APPEAR TO agree that CURRENT bulk acCess provisions should be
> maintained in
> the gTLD environment, AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO APPLY TO OTHER
> -[Respondents agree that bulk access provisions should be extended to
> apply to other TLDs.]
> As opposed to these rather clear BUT CONTRADICTORY 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 THERE IS AT LEAST SOME CLEAR EVIDENCE (IN THE RESPONSES TO QUESTION
> 16) THAT 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.
> End edit
> I also suggest the following edit for clarity in the first sentence of the
> discussion of question 16.
> With the exception of the "other" and "not stated" categories of
> respondents, [no] PROHIBITING resale or marketing use is preferred over an
> approach to such use.
> Finally, in the second paragraph of the discussion of question 17d, I
> suggest the following insertion:
> The evaluation of A SELECTION OF the free-form responses.....
> I hope this is helpful and, as noted above, still timely. Will a "final"
> draft be circulated for review?
> Steve Metalitz
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <email@example.com>