DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-whois] gTLD Thinking on the Way Ahead

  • To: <nc-whois@dnso.org>
  • Subject: [nc-whois] gTLD Thinking on the Way Ahead
  • From: "Karen Elizaga" <karen@elizaga.name>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:54:06 -0000
  • Sender: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org
  • Thread-Index: AcG7e5GjxjtBJn1YRb6u+fGSzlb12QD+GJMg
  • Thread-Topic: [nc-whois] DRAFT: bulk access part of the report

The gTLD wants to express its thanks to Thomas for the considerable
analysis and work he has put into the draft Ghana report, which will
help enormously as we prepare not only the interim report, but even more
importantly, the final report.    
We'd like to make some general suggestions about the best path ahead, in
light of our conference call later today, as well as specific comments
on the draft.
With respect to the final whois report, we feel strongly that it should
reflect careful, thoughtful analysis of all the data.  This is important
if our recommendations are to gain support from the larger community.
For that reason, we continue to believe, as the TF decided a few months
ago, that we owe it to the people who took the time to respond to the
survey to read what they wrote. We realize this is a time-consuming
effort, but we can divide up the work.  (We are not certain if others
are suggesting that we revisit this issue, but in case so we wanted to
restate our view.)
With respect to the Ghana report, we think it is important that it
convey a good overview of the statistical data that we have.  We
envision (1) a summary of where we are in the process of preparing a
final report, (2) an overview of the statistical breakdown, including
observations about different audiences (including the many instances
where they do not differ) - Note this can be done relatively easily from
the 22 page breakdown ICANN sent us - we suggest dividing the questions
up by constituency for efficiency; and (3) a brief description (e.g., 1-
page) of those areas where we have already tried to analyze the textual
data, noting any preliminary observations.  If we can reach agreement on
this during our call tomorrow, and ask for drafts by March 1, or if need
be, early next week, we should be in good shape. 
With respect to Thomas' draft, we think it seems more appropriate for
the final report, after we have been through all the data, than for the
interim report. As mentioned above, we envision a short description of
each issue where have analyzed free text, e.g., bulk access and the
others.  But at this stage it would be premature to draw "conclusions"
without looking in detail at all the questions and all the surveys.  It
goes without saying that we think there is more than enough that we do
have to present a solid report at Ghana.  Also, with respect to
preparing the summary for Ghana, and the longer analysis for afterwards,
some of the issues we can flag now are that (1) we should clarify
whether we are referring to individuals only (vs commercial entities);
(2) the statistics on p4 appear do not reconcile with the ICANN data we
received; (3) it may not be possible to simply add the statistical data
on p5 to produce the 3rd chart; and (4) the contradiction between
questions 16 and 17 needs to be explored more fully.  
In addition, both the interim and the final reports need to be honest
about what the survey does do and doesn't do, and its shortcomings, now
that those of us who helped write have the benefit of hindsight (e.g.,
while many questions are fine, some could be interpreted as skewed
towards particularly answers, others should have been broken down
further to make the answers clearer, and some could be seen to
contradict each other.)  Honesty on this point will only buttress our
recommendations to the wider community.
Thanks, Miriam, Karen & Ram

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