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

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

I hve just returned, and will try to have everything edited and well up
on the web, on two addresses, in at least two formats, by tomorrow
evening GMT (late evening)

regards

abel

P.S. before i comment on any comment i would like to read all i have
received and look over the numbers, one thing i can state is that the
totals from the survey as given to us are "incorrect" but hat has been
discussed enough i think.

abel


On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 23:41, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> 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