DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-whois] drafting of the interim report... D. TBD

Wonderful, Laurence.  We'll review this and other submissions on the call. Tony and I will ask you to walk the group through the document below. This is very helpful work. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Djolakian, Laurence [mailto:Laurence_Djolakian@mpaa.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:17 AM
To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; 'NC-WHOIS'; 'Antonio Harris'
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] drafting of the interim report... D. TBD

Dear All,

Please find attached a draft document which includes a number of baskets for each question. We need to review it and I am not sure it is complete.  However I wanted to send you this doc in advance of our conf call today.



-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:26 AM
Cc: 'Antonio Harris'; Juliano,Marie M - LGA; 'Glen'
Subject: [nc-whois] drafting of the interim report... D. TBD
Importance: High

In our last call, the co-chairs  noted that we would provide an outline for
the interim/draft report of the TV.  What follows is the outline for the
full report, the relevant sections for an interim report are in bold. We
took the draft provided by Paul Kane, the original chair, updated the input
based on the work of the group, and are providing an updated outline. In our
call tomorrow, we will discuss and take input. BUT, assignments and
volunteers for drafting will be done offline so that we can manage
effectively in the meeting tem allocated.

Also, Miriam Sapiro, Tim Denton, and a couple of other participants
volunteered to offer suggestions on the outline of the report. Tony and
Marilyn have tried to take into account all input received to date.
Therefore, we attach it; will take questions, and will seek to finalize as
much as possible...on the call. 

In the meantime, even as we take comment on the outline, we want to move
ahead with interim agreements  so that the work of the TF continues.  

The draft outline for a report on the survey is attached and will be one
segment of our discussion tomorrow on our call.

Please understand we will not be debating either format or assignments on
the call.  So, treat this section accordingly.  THE ONLY DISCUSSION IN THIS

ABOUT DRAFTING:  Secondly, we are managing the broad interests and needs of
all TF participants.  This is a drafting effort which involves a broad set
of interests.  You aren't signing onto a final document at this point.  All
TF members will have editing opportunities, regardless of  whether you
drafted or not...

Tony and Marilyn, as chairs, will take input on volunteers for drafting
sections and will make assignments in a follow up memo. You can volunteer,
via email, for your first three priorities in drafting team assignments. We
will do our best to ensure that everyone gets into one of their three
preferences. Since there are many segments, this will be an art form for
Tony and Marilyn in terms of assignments.  :-) You may get your first
choice, your second choice, etc.  Our priority is the total outcome... help
us by being flexible and accommodating, in spite of personal prefererences.
That will advance the credibility and integrity of the TF with the community
and father our common goals. 

We know we can count on you to be flexible and cooperative in this process. 

as always.

Regards, Marilyn and  Tony

> I.   Executive Summary (Marilyn and Tony will draft a very short statement
> for the interim report)
> II.  Introduction
A.   Purpose of the task force based on the terms of reference (suggested
drafters:  Marilyn, Tony, Paul, Miriam)

B.  History:  What it is.  How it is provided.  How it is presently used.
How it exists.  Thin vs. thick.  Volume of use in
>       .com, .org, .net  (suggested drafters: Miriam Sapiro/other member of
> TF-- ask for volunteer )      
> C/D.  Methodology and Description of Analysis Process:  (suggested
> drafter: Miriam Sapiro/___________)
>      C.   What we did.  Timeframe.  Questionnaire.  (Appendix)
     D.  Description of Analysis Process

>       1.  Analytical - 3,000
>       2.  Statistical survey of narrative responses - 300  
>       3.  Additional assessment of full 3,000 narrative responses
> III.  Analysis
>        A.  Analytical reports with charts (tabulations to go into
> appendix)
Marilyn/Tony/Miriam/Thomas:  review of data/reports.  
>        B.  Subjective review of 300 statistical responses -- Steve, Tony,
> Oscar, Troy, Thomas, Tim-provide narrative draft of findings, based on
> agreed to baskets. TF will provide edits.
>        C.  Subjective review of additional responses (3,000) time frame to
> be determined:  Add in assistance from Miriam, Marilyn, Y.J., other
> volunteers...
>        D.  Description of any differences found between the 300 and the
> 3,000 (did it scale?)
>         E.  Final subjective analysis
>          F.  Integrative view (analytic and narrative)
> IV.     Conclusion
> V.       Recommendation
>            A.  Overview
>            B.  What should happen next
> VI.      Appendices
>            A.  Questionnaire  {available)
>            B.  Statistical responses (available)
>            C.  TBD
>            E.  Minority reports, if any
>            F.   Any other supplementary comments
>            G.   Members of the Task Force (historical map to
> changes...available)
> Marie M. Juliano
> AT&T Law & Government Affairs
> 1120 20th Street, N.W.
> 10th Floor
> Washington, D.C.  20036
> 202-457-2789
> 202-457-3051 (Fax)
> mjuliano@att.com

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