DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-whois] DRAFT: bulk access part of the report

Thanks, folks, for this very extensive amount of work!

I am trying to finalize the call next week, and it looks like it will be
Wednesday. I'll do a final count today and post. Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 3:24 AM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] DRAFT: bulk access part of the report

Please find attached a first draft of what our report on the bulk 
access question could look like.

Please make sure you read AT LEAST the Summary on the first page, 
and and the Findings section which begins on page 8.  In both 
sections, the report makes assertions about what conclusions the 
majority of this task force draws from the observations.  Generally, 
I assume that we can get consensus of the majority of this task 
force where I believe that the numbers we have send a clear message. 
I have, below all those sections, included a specific disclaimer 
which states that the gTLD and non-comm constituencies don't 
currently agree with conclusions.

Note that no such disclaimer is included below the last part of the 
Findings section (on question 17.c).  This is for the reason that 
this particular section really just gives a narrative version of the 
statistics, and tries to explain where the disagreement comes from - 
however, without stating any particular conclusions or 

If you have minor nits to fix (like bad grammar, style, speling, or 
other errors due to the fact that English is not my native 
language), please let me know about these off-list.

If you have reservations about conclusions drawn or other key points 
of the report's contents, please discuss these on the nc-whois 
mailing list.

Have a nice week-end,
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

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