FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV
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."
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 6:57 PM
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>