RE: [nc-whois] Consolidated comments on draft interim report

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Thanks for your comments, Steve.  I have no problems with any of the 
edits you propose.

Steve Metalitz wrote:

> From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>
> To: nc-whois@dnso.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
> deadlines
> 
> 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
> versa).
> 
> 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
> call):
> 
> 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
> access.
> 
> 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
> TLDS.
> 
> -[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
> opt-in
> 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) <roessler@does-not-exist.org>