RE: [nc-whois] Consolidated comments on draft interim report

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

TO:	Whois Task Force members
FM:	Steve Metalitz
RE: 	Comments on draft interim report
DT:	3/6/02

I hope that these comments are still timely and appreciate what can be done
at this point to incorporate them.  I regret having to miss the conference
call yesterday so if any of these points were resolved there please ignore.
Thanks to all drafters for their excellent contributions under very short
deadlines   

1.	Thomas' draft circulated Saturday night (March 2)

Two general comments.  First, in several places, grand totals are missing
from the charts.  E.g., page 6, dealing with question 4.  While the
breakdown by category is useful, the grand total including all responses can
also be significant.  Second, in some charts the responses are presented in
alphabetical order rather than logical order.  This may be confusing.  For
example, on page 5, the responses on question 3 as to how often respondents
use Whois is presented in the following order:  not
stated/daily/hourly/never/occasionally/weekly.  A more logical presentation
order would be:  hourly/daily/weekly/occasionally/never/not stated (or the
opposite, which is the way it was presented in the survey).  Another example
is question 9 (the order should be:  essential/desirable/valueless, or vice
versa).  

Regarding chapter IV (questions 16 & 17):  I gather this was discussed at
length on the call and I see that Thomas has proposed some new language
which I will review below   rather than providing my comments on the
original text.  

2.	Introduction (draft circulated by Marilyn)

Again, I know this was discussed on the call and according to Thomas'
post-call memorandum, approved in full.  Did anyone have any concerns about
the characterization of the Task Force terms of reference in the second
paragraph under "History and Mission"?  There is a close quote at the end of
this paragraph but I don't know from what document the quote is taken.  I
believe the following might be a more complete summary, based on the
archival material already posted in
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00193.html and
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00190.html:   "to consult
with the community with regard to establishing whether a review of ANY
QUESTIONS RELATING TO ICANN's WHOIS policy is due, AND IF SO TO RECOMMEND A
MECHANISM FOR SUCH A REVIEW."   I also think that this should not be
presented as a quote since in fact it is a paraphrase. 

3.	Chapter II

I fully support what Laurence posted on this prior to the call.  I will work
with her on responding to the points Thomas makes in the first paragraph of
his "caveats" from his post-call memo.  Thomas is correct (in his second
caveat) that the numbers in this submission are taken from the October 2001
tabulation and need to be conformed to the grand totals as presented in the
interim report (such grand totals were not presented in the March 2 draft,
as noted above).  I am not sure about the political sensitivity involved in
his third caveat regarding the wording of the text relating to question 8.
The phrase "original gTLD" is meant to refer to .com/net/org; the data
elements made available to the public in Whois are in fact slightly
different in some of the new gTLDs, so if this phrase is objectionable we
should either state ".com/net/org" or else come up with a different phrase.


4.	Chapter III (gTLD Registry redline text sent after the conference
call):

At several points, reference is made to percentages drawn from the grand
totals (e.g., regarding question 15).  None of these grand totals appears in
the document circulated by Thomas, so they should be added in accordance
with the first general comment in the preceding section.  

Regarding question 14a, the second line should read, "supported centralizing
ACCESS TO the Whois databases..." (new language in CAPS).  Clearly the
databases themselves need not necessarily be centralized.   In the same
paragraph, the second sentence (beginning on the fourth line) should begin,
"The categories of respondents IN which THE LARGEST MINORITY rejected
centralized access [most significantly] were...".  (New language in CAPS,
deletions in [brackets].)  None of these categories rejected centralized
access.  

5.	Chapter IV

I propose the following revisions (using the same conventions as above re
additions and deletions) to the draft Thomas circulated this afternoon.  I
just do not think that the responses to question 17(a) are ambiguous.  The
survey recites the current gTLD policies and then asks, "Do you think that
THESE PROVISIONS should be maintained in the gTLD environment?" (emphasis
added)   I believe the responses are quite clear, if quite contradictory to
the answers given to 16.  I do not have any disagreement with the bottom
line but I think we are better off noting the contradiction rather than
saying that an unambiguous response is ambiguous.  I know that not everyone
agrees with this reading and I am comfortable noting the different readings
in the text of the report.    

Begin edit:
Based on preliminary analysis, the Task Force believes that 
cross-cateGory consensus among respondentS can be identified with respect 
to the following points:

- When asked whether registrars should be allowed to engage in resale or 
marketing use of whois data, respondent appear to favor opt-in policies, 
or not allowing such use at all, over opt-out policies or 
unconditionally allowing such use.

- Respondents APPEAR TO agree that CURRENT bulk acCess provisions should be
maintained in 
the gTLD environment, AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO APPLY TO OTHER
TLDS.  

-[Respondents agree that bulk access provisions should be extended to 
apply to other TLDs.]

As opposed to these rather clear BUT CONTRADICTORY signals, there is a
strong signal of 
indecision when respondents were asked whether or not to change the bulk 
access provisions.  Free-form responses of those who suggested such a 
change mirror the result from the "resale and marketing" question, and 
favor opt-in or stricter policies.

Since THERE IS AT LEAST SOME CLEAR EVIDENCE (IN THE RESPONSES TO QUESTION
16) THAT the kind of third party data access policy favored by respondents 
appears to be different from the one currently implemented in the 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a review of that policy which keeps 
the survey´s results in mind may be in order.

End edit

I also suggest the following edit for clarity in the first sentence of the
discussion of question 16.  

With the exception of the "other" and "not stated" categories of 
respondents, [no] PROHIBITING resale or marketing use is preferred over an
opt-in 
approach to such use.

Finally, in the second paragraph of the discussion of question 17d, I
suggest the following insertion:

The evaluation of A SELECTION OF the free-form responses.....

I hope this is helpful and, as noted above, still timely. Will a "final"
draft be circulated for review?  

Steve Metalitz