[nc-whois] [Fwd: WHOIS Survey]

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>]

Pleased find attached the _draft_ Minutes of our WHOIS meeting in MV... May I
thank Danny Younger for being the scribe.
If you have any comments/changes please discuss on the list.

We may need to revist the timetable but I hope that would not be necessary.

Best

Paul

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Paul,
>
> Please accept my apologies for the unfortunate delay.  Minutes of the first
> WHOIS Committee meeting in Montevideo follow:
>
> Participants:
>
> Paul Kane, Chair
> Miriam Sapiro
> Y.J.Park
> Marilyn Cade
> Axel aus der Muhlen
> Danny Younger

Tony Harris
Oscar Robles sent his apologies.

>
>
> Paul Kane advised the Committee that the WHOIS survey, which had been
> circulated in numerous languages, had received approximately 3000 responses.
> The proposal was put forth for consideration that either the committee divide
> itself into teams of two (each team to review around 700 random responses) or
> that the review would be conducted on an individual basis (with around 350
> responses allocated to each participant for analysis).

Working in four self select "teams" of two was the preferred course.

>
> It was recommended that attention be given to the proposed layout of the
> report to be generated by the Committee (i.e. Executive Summary, Anomalies,
> Trends-by-Sector, etc.), and that in "Phase One" there would be a need to
> identify areas where more work is necessary.  It was noted that a timetable
> and target dates would need to be established, and it was articulated that it
> was considered desirable if all results/data could ultimately be viewable by
> the general public.
>
> A certain number of "bullet points" followed - the fact that there was a
> significant number of free text responses, that IP numbers had been recorded
> (which when using a reverse look-up might allow for a determination of
> country-source), that the Survey was not a "poll" but rather an
> information-gathering tool, and that the initial question to be answered was,
> "How do we propose to review these responses in detail?"
>
> Marilyn Cade expressed the view that she did not prefer an "industry sector"
> analysis approach.  Miriam Sapiro concurred with this assessment.  The
> discussion then turned quickly to aspects of methodology.  In either a team
> or individual approach, intermediate reports would be required that would
> thereafter need to be merged; as such, both the time requirement and the
> quantity of responses became a process issue.
>
> The question was posed, "How many responses included free text?"  It was
> estimated that perhaps 70% did include free text.  Additional questions were
> put forth, "Is it the desire of this Committee to make all information
> public?"  "Have we created expectations?"  "Can all foreign language
> responses be translated to English?"  "Can we categorize comments into broad
> themes?"  "Should we obtain the raw data first prior to determining the
> appropriate approach?"
>
> Paul Kane took a moment to reflect upon the Committee's remit (consult,
> establish consensus areas, define areas for further work), and then outlined
> the differences between the prior ICANN staff efforts to deal with WHOIS
> considerations and the efforts of this WHOIS Committee.
>
> Committee members then returned to a discussion regarding the raw data.  How
> "open" would this committee be?  Is there an agreement that no raw data
> should be released until a report was generated?  What would constitute a
> proper format for analysis?  Should the raw data be tabulated on a
> question-by-question basis, or formatted by industry sector and question?
>
> The decision was reached that an analytical format "by-industry/by-question"
> would serve the Committee well, and that all such raw data would be made
> available to all Committee members via the web on a password-protected basis.
>  Concerns were raised by some members regarding the enormous amount of
> comments to be processed, and the recommendation was put forth to assess
> one-third of all responses in detail.  It was deemed appropriate that further
> discussions regarding the eventual layout of the Committee report could be
> discussed on-line.
>
> The Committee next sought to establish a timeframe for their efforts.  After
> considerable discussion the following loose timetable emerged:
>
> SEPT. - receipt of raw data
> NOV.  - follow-up meeting with review of at least 100 sample survey responses
> JAN.  - initiate merge of 4 independent reports
> FEB.  - Interim Draft
> MAR. - receipt of Public Comments
> APR. - Summary report for presentation to the Names Council
>
> Committee members resolved to commit to keeping all Survey data confidential
> until its Public release-date.