[nc-whois] edits to the draft
please find attached a version of the bulk access draft which
contains (1) the edits suggested during the telephone conference,
(2) a skeleton of the final preliminary report, (3) the work
assignments agreed upon, and (4) some additions which try to take
into account some of our discussions.
More specifically, I have included the wording of question 4 (and
will add the results tonight). I have also moved the statistical
considerations behind all the questions' results to better align the
structure with the one of the other chapters. (Sorry, the
bluelining of changes took this entire paragraph...)
In the bulk access chapter, I have changed the title to "Bulk and
Marketing Access to WHOIS Data". I have replaced "opt-in or better"
by "opt-in or stricter", as suggested by Steve metalitz. I have
replaced numbers spelled out in words in the analysis of free-form
responses by digits, since someone didn't find them during the call.
In the same paragraph, I have replaced "89% of responses" by "89% of
the 99 free-form responses".
In the findings section, I have integrated some changes which mirror
the discussions during the call, but were not explicitly agreed
upon. In particular, I have changed the heading to "Findings and
Discussin of Results". I have changed the recommendation to be "to
review ICANN's WHOIS policy with respect to bulk access", and I have
included a paragraph which was based on our discussion of what
question 16 actually means.
For question 17.a, I have included a discussion of the semantic
problem Steve Metalitz and I had with the wording of that question.
I then note that the conclusion tated in the report (namely, that
some kind of bulk access provision should be maintaned) is certainly
backed by both interpretations of the question, and that more
specific conclusions may be derived after further discussion.
An analogous, but shorter note can be found in the discussion of
Please send your comments on these edits to the list ASAP. One
particular question I'm interested in is what I should do about the
cautionary statements concerning the gTLD and non-commercial
constituencies. Do these still apply, or can you agree with the
(I also suppose I should start to change the file name.)
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/