Re: [nc-whois] Basketing: Preliminary report.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-04-30 02:06:10 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>Anyway, I should most likely explain the labels: For each 
>category, there are four lines.  

I'm just noticing that no legend for the column labels was ever  
posted to the publicly archived list.  I'm attaching a slightly  
edited [I have erased phone numbers] version of the HOWTO document 
in HTML format.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

Title:

2002-04-05, T.R.

DRAFT

baskets-howto.sdw

Notes for the Evaluation of Free-Form Responses

Kristy McKee and Thomas Roessler

(General Assembly)

DEADLINE: APRIL 24.

NO DATA RECEIVED AFTER MAY 1 CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

ONLY DATA RECEIVED BY APRIL 24 IS GUARANTEED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

IF YOU NEED ANY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH THIS, PLEASE CALL OR E-MAIL
THOMAS OR KRISTY.

Thomas is available at <roessler@does-not-exist.org> or +49-### and tries to live according to Central European Time.

Kristy is available at <k@ies.net> or +1.### and uses US Central Standard Time.

Procedure

Thomas Roessler

Question 20 is not covered here. Abel Wisman has volunteered to perform this task, and will report to the mailing list separately.

Based on the task force's discussions in its April 4 teleconference, the following procedure is to be used for the evaluation of the free-form responses.

• The full set of responses is split into slices of 150 questionnaires each. Slices are assigned to members of the task force by the co-chairs. Please note that questions were generally not responded to by all participants in the survey, so a slice of 150 questionnaires will not mean 150 responses per question.

• For each such slice, a work sheet is generated. The work sheets are made available in CSV (comma-separated value) format. With Excel, just open this file, and you get a table. You are free to change cosmetic parameters as you wish (i.e., font, column width and height, and the like). However, please

DO NOT CHANGE THE ARRANGEMENT OF ROWS OR COLUMNS
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
DOING SO WILL MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION USELESS
FOR THE FURTHER EVALUATION PLANNED.

Also, do not change the content of the first three columns, or the column containing the multiple-choice part of question 8.

• For each questionnaire in the slice assigned to you, please use the baskets denoted in this document in order to classify the responses to free-form questions. For each possible basket, there is a single-character key, with 0 always meaning "no answer", and keys being either digits or capital characters.

• If a response does not fit into any category, please use an asterisk (*).

• If you consider a response a "gem", please append a hash character (#) to the category key. For instance, a particularly nice answer to question 17.d which advocates improved opt-out would be marked by "5#" in the table. A non-basketable gem would be marked by "*#".

• If you are not entirely sure about the basket you have assigned to some answer, please add a question mark to the category key, like in "5?".

• If a response is unreadable, please mark it with a dash (-).

• If a response needs translation, please mark it with the two characters "tr".

• For questions which combine a yes/no part and an elaboration (questions 10+), a repetition of the yes/no answer in the free-form part should be counted as "no answer" (category 0).

As an example, the basketing for questionnaires 3001-3035 has already been done; the results are available as an Excel sheet from http://does-not-exist.org/whois/sheet-3001.xls.

Please make sure that you strictly stick to these rules, since the resulting data will be evaluated automatically. Not following the rules will mean additional and unnecessary work for those who are going to further evaluate the results.

If you believe that there is a praticular answer which (1) does not fit into any basket, and (2) occurs frequently, please raise this issue on the nc-whois mailing list as early as possible. There will be an opportunity for a conference call on April 17; this conference call will be devoted to making any necessary changes to the baskets.

The expected time frame for the entire basketing work is April 24, 2002. Please try to submit your results to the list no later than that day. Please submit your results either in Excel or CSV format.

Baskets

Question 7 [inconv]

Kristy McKee

(Approximately 900 answers.)

"If appropriate, please describe the harm or inconvenience caused by the inaccurate data."

No answer	0
Inability to contact right party on following issues...
spammers	1
cybersquatters	2
infringers	3
denial of service	4
domain theft	5
faulty charges	6
incorrect DNS	7
other (catch-all)	D
slow updates	8
unable to register expired domains	9
missed licensing opportunities	A
missed domain name purchasing opportunities (expiration data)	B
Loss of time or money (catch-all)	C

Question 7 [improve]

Kristy McKee

(Approximately 900 answers.)

"How do you think an improvement can best be achieved?"

no answer	0
validate data periodically	1
send reminders	2
standardize data format	3
enforce punishment of data-miners/spammers	4
add complaint system	5
add abuse contact	6
punish registrant for inaccurate data	7
punish registrar for inaccurate data	8
educate registrants	9
protect contact info	A
protect personal info	B
access WHOIS by digital certificate holders only	C
create expired domain policy	D
punish ISP for permitting Spammers	E
enforce timely updates by registries	F
enforce quality of service / working web site	G

Question 8

Kristy Mckee

(Approximately 800 answers.)

Note: In this case, you'll have to look at the multiple-choice part of question 8 first in order to see if you should enter the result into the column labeled Q.8 [inadeq] or Q.8 [unnec]. For your convenience, the multiple-choice result has been included with the template.

"If you answered 'Inadequate,' what other data elements would you like to see included to promote public confidence in Internet activities?"

no answer	0
Web site status (active/inactive)	1
accuracy requirement for all data fields	2
show e-mail only	3
privacy	4
all telnet whois commands	5
registrant current address	6
identity of primary net feed	7
log files for data changes (includes history of earlier registrants)	8
date of most recent update	9
registrant e-mail address	A
abuse contact e-mail address	B
purpose of domain (at one time registrants were required to fill in this field)	C
certificates	D
spam inhibiting system	E
registrar contact information	F
availability for sale	G

"If you answered 'Unnecessary,' what other data elements would you like to see suppressed from public disclosure?"

no answer	0
All telephone/fax #s, and postal addresses	1
All telephone and fax numbers	2
All postal information	3
Billing Contact information	4
postal for AC & BC	5
postal of registrant	6
All Except technical contact information	7
all except TC and AC information	8
Public access to whois data	9
permit anonymity	A
protect individual information	B
protect email	C

It should be noted that this question (although supposed to be answered in free-form) partially overlaps with question 9, where respondents can assign levels such as "essential", "desirable", or "valueless" to individual data elements currently contained in the WHOIS database.

Question 10

Thomas Roessler

(Approximately 1780 answers.)

"Should other enhancements to searchability [...] be provided? If 'Yes,' how should the cost associated with such enhancements be paid for?"

Note: The baskets proposed are mainly the ones used for the preliminary report, with some additions.

no answer	0
registrar or registry	1
registrant	2
searcher	3
donation	4
governmental funding	5
ICANN	6
there is no or only minimal cost	7
let the free software community take care of this	8
advertising	9

Question 12

Thomas Roessler

(Approximately 1250 answers.)

"Do you think that the data elements used in .com, .net, and .org should be available uniformly in country code top-level domains? Why or why not?"

no answer	0
Yes, same reason as with gTLDs	1
Yes, uniformity makes scripting/use easier	2
Yes, want uniformity of data (without further reason)	3
No, take into account national specifics of ccTLDs	4
No, enable competition between TLDs	5
No, uniformity makes scripting/abuse easier	6
Respondent did not understand the question, or replied to a different question.	7

Note: Basket 1 ("same reason as with gTLDs") should also be applied in cases where the respondent gives a specific response ("intellectual property enforcement") which applies to gTLDs and ccTLDs in the same way.

Question 13

Thomas Roessler

(Approximately 1250 answers.)

"Do you support the concept of uniformity of WHOIS data format and services? What, in your view, is the best way to achieve uniformity both in format and search capability across WHOIS services?"

no answer	0
Centralize database	1
technical standardization + enforcement	2
technical standardization (includes "distributed protocol")	3
use same software everywhere (should this be "technical standardization", too?)	4
make uniform search a paid-for service, and let the market take care of the problem.	5
Respondent did not understand the question, or replied to a different question.	6

Question 14

Thomas Roessler

(Approximately 1000 answers.)

"Do you support the concept of centralized public access to WHOIS [...] If appropriate, what, in your view, is the best way to achieve the level of centralized public access that you support?"

no answer	0
Centralize database	1
Technical standardization	2
Do it in the client; or: Use distributed database system as with DNS	3
Do it in a centralized portal/proxy (includes paid for services, market-based approach, etc)	4
Respondent did not understand the question, or replied to a different question.	5

Question 17.d

Thomas Roessler

(Approximately 1000 answers.)

"Do you think that ... these provisions (bulk access provisions) should be changed? If so, how?"

no answer	0
No bulk access or sale of data	1
No bulk access for marketing	2
Opt-in before any sale or bulk access	3
Opt-in before any sale or bulk access for marketing purposes	4
Improve opt-out	5
Better privacy protection	6
Relax current restrictions	7

Note: These baskets were also used as the basis for the preliminary report.

2/10