Re: FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV
I have reviewed the changes you are suggesting, and suggest the
following way of adopting the underlying concerns (see the attached
Word document for details).
- Analysis of free-form responses to q. 17.d: Add a first sentence
to the paragraph, "The free-form part of question 17.d asked
those who had demanded a change in the existing bulk access
provisions (about half of all respondents) to elaborate on the
kind of change they desire. Across all categroies ofrespondents,
I have no problem with the other changes you suggest to this
- Section E, "Issues identified." I don't think that preservation
of public access belongs into the "privacy" bullet point.
Instead, I've added a new bullet point: "Access: Various
respondents stressed the need for continued public access to
whois data, and for the enforcement of bulk access provisions."
- Section F, "Findings and Discussion of Results." With all due
respect, I believe that it's sufficient to mention the result
from the yes-no part of that question once in a short, ten-line
summary of the results. I've changed the text like this:
>> Taking error margins into account, the yes-no part of this
question leads to an undecided result or to thin majorities in
some of the categories: Half of the respondents suggest that the
bulk access provisions should be changed, half suggest they
The result of the evaluation of the free-form responses which were
given by those who do suggest a change of bulk access provisions
look very similar to the results from question 16: Between 62% and
82% (or a total of 75%) of these respondents call for opt-in
policies or no access to data for resale or marketing purposes;
additionally, some responses more generally ask for stricter
privacy protection. There was very little support for improving
the present opt-out mechanisms (< 10%), and close to no support
change to the existing bulk access provisions. <<
I suppose that this wording makes the numbers clear enough.
I hope you folks can agree with these changes, so we can close the
substantial part of chapter IV - of course, some numbers and charts
will still have to be added.
PS: The software I use can deal quite nicely with change tracking à
la Word, and that approach makes things easier. The problems mostly
occur with advanced formatting and OLE objects. I'm not just
relying on a PDA this time. ;)
Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
On 2002-06-18 09:45:21 -0400, Steve Metalitz wrote:
>From: Steve Metalitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "'NC-WHOIS@DNSO.ORG'" <NC-WHOIS@dnso.org>
>Subject: FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:45:21 -0400
>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>