DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-whois] FW: WHOIS TF Comments

exactly -- it's cost/who funds.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 11:52 AM
To: Ram Mohan; NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] FW: WHOIS TF Comments

Thanks, Karen and Ram:  Question:  rather than pricing, do you mean "cost"?
That might be the better category: Who funds?  Is that the missing theme?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Mohan [mailto:rmohan@afilias.info]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 9:05 AM
To: NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-whois] FW: WHOIS TF Comments

Marilyn, Tony, and WHOIS TF:
Karen and I spent some time yesterday on the thoughtful questions raised in
Thursday's email - some of our thoughts, which we have shared with the
Registry constituency and received general support on are attached.  I
personally believe that these comments apply far beyond any one
Constituency, and apply to the entire issue of WHOIS.

I expect to wrap up the basketing and the survey completion assignments

Best Regards,
Karen & Ram

1.  the categories are sufficiently broad to cover the major topics that are
(a) of interest to intended audience, and (b) have relevant data in the
surveys to be of value.

2.  We suggest adding a theme on pricing, unless this subject has sufficient
coverage elsewhere.

3.  We need to add a new question:
       What is the present policy?

4.  The question <What can they do to fix the problem> should be modified

5.  >>Does present policy support any needed changes?
This question has difficult wording.  The previous question asks what can be
done to fix the problems -- however, there is scant discussion of the
DEFINITION of "needed" changes, vs. "not-needed" changes -- unless our plan
is to arrive at "needed" changes from analysis of the survey results.  We
recommend that "needed" changes be modified or qualifed sufficiently,
if in fact we intend to make a subjective call on what is "needed"

6.  >>Who needs to agree to change?
This question, as worded, has almost only one answer -- everyone.  I cannot
imagine any
one constituency wanting to be left out of the "agree to change" loop,
if other constituencies are going to be consulted.

Rather, the intent of the question will be better served by tabulating which
constituencies are (a) most affected as suppliers, (b) most affected as
recepients -- and which constituencies are in a position to institute
necessary change.

Consideration needs to be given in particular to Suppliers, whose bottom
lines will be affected by any change, as any change implemented will likely
have costs associated with it.


Ram Mohan
Vice President, Business Operations
p: +1-215-706-5700; f: +1-215-706-5701
e: rmohan@afilias.info
Sign up for .INFO Newsletter at <http://www.afilias.info/news/newsletter>
Questions? Call +1 (866) Dot.INFO or +1-215-706-5710

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 9:49 PM
To: NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-whois] Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:51:21 -0400

Tony and I have been discussing some possible groupings for the themes which
developed as we have basketed.

Several themes or meta categories have developed:



Access (includes privacy aspects)

Marketing -- unrelated use, third party access, resale

Bulk Access

We ask that as you continue your work and analysis, you think about whether
these meta themes capture the
core issues.

Next, under each of these, there are a few questions:

Who is responsible?
What can they do to fix the problem?
Does present policy support any needed changes?
Who needs to agree to change?

Are these the right "meta themes"?  Are there more?

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>