DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV

Thank you.

I have reviewed the changes you are suggesting, and suggest the  
following way of adopting the underlying concerns (see the attached 
Word document for details).

 - Analysis of free-form responses to q. 17.d:  Add a first sentence 
   to the paragraph, "The free-form part of question 17.d asked 
   those who had demanded a change in the existing bulk access 
   provisions (about half of all respondents) to elaborate on the 
   kind of change they desire. Across all categroies ofrespondents, 
   I have no problem with the other changes you suggest to this 
 - Section E, "Issues identified." I don't think that preservation  
   of public access belongs into the "privacy" bullet point.   
   Instead, I've added a new bullet point: "Access: Various  
   respondents stressed the need for continued public access to  
   whois data, and for the enforcement of bulk access provisions."
 - Section F, "Findings and Discussion of Results."  With all due 
   respect, I believe that it's sufficient to mention the result 
   from the yes-no part of that question once in a short, ten-line 
   summary of the results.  I've changed the text like this:
   >> Taking error margins into account, the yes-no part of this 
   question leads to an undecided result or to thin majorities in 
   some of the categories: Half of the respondents suggest that the 
   bulk access provisions should be changed, half suggest they 

   The result of the evaluation of the free-form responses which were 
   given by those who do suggest a change of bulk access provisions  
   look very similar to the results from question 16: Between 62% and 
   82% (or a total of 75%) of these respondents call for opt-in  
   policies or no access to data for resale or marketing purposes;  
   additionally, some responses more generally ask for stricter 
   privacy protection.  There was very little support for improving 
   the present opt-out mechanisms (< 10%), and close to no support 
   for a more relaxed privacy policy among those who demanded a 
   change to the existing bulk access provisions. <<

   I suppose that this wording makes the numbers clear enough.

I hope you folks can agree with these changes, so we can close the  
substantial part of chapter IV - of course, some numbers and charts  
will still have to be added.

PS: The software I use can deal quite nicely with change tracking   
la Word, and that approach makes things easier.  The problems mostly 
occur with advanced formatting and OLE objects.  I'm not just 
relying on a PDA this time.  ;)

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

On 2002-06-18 09:45:21 -0400, Steve Metalitz wrote:
>From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>
>To: "'NC-WHOIS@DNSO.ORG'" <NC-WHOIS@dnso.org>
>Subject: FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:45:21 -0400
>X-No-Spam: whitelist
>I suggest a few changes to the draft of chapter IV.  In the attached, these
>are found in CAPS (new mateial) and [brackets] (proposed deletions).  For
>the most part, these would reflect the fact that half the respondents did
>not call for a change in bulk access policies (Q. 17d), and that "stricter"
>privacy protection is not necessarily "better."   
>Steve Metalitz
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
>Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 6:57 PM
>To: nc-whois@dnso.org
>Cc: Kristy McKee
>Subject: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV
>Please find attached revisions to chapters I.C, I.D, I.E, IV.  I'm  
>also including the spreadsheet I used to generate the numbers for  
>the narrative on question 17.d.  
>(BTW, it turns out that an inconsistency had crept into the  
>preliminary report's evaluation of that question; instead of 89% it  
>should apparently have been 85% there who wanted opt-in or stricter  
>protection.  I have no idea how this could happen.)
>In the final report, the results are slightly less clear than in the 
>preliminary report, but they are still strong - in particular if you 
>look at _all_ responses by extrapolating (see spreadsheet for  
>Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>


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