<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-whois] chapter ii, question 9
I'm concerned by the current draft text covering question 9, in
chapter II:
>Not surprisingly in light of the responses to question 8, more
>than half of respondents found each individual data element now in
>the com/net/org Whois to be essential. Perhaps more remarkably,
>this held true for nearly every category of respondent with
>respect to nearly every data element. The lowest proportion of
>"essential" responses to any part of this question was 39%, by
>individual respondents with regard to the date of registration
>data element; and even there, 48% of the same individual
>respondents called this data element "desirable," with only 12%
>deeming it "valueless." The clear trend of satisfaction among
>these respondents with the information currently provided to the
>public by Whois is evident in the responses to question 9 as well
>as 8.
Instead of looking for a low number of "essential" responses (which,
in this case, leads to an element which is found _desirable_ by
many), a considerably better metric for the degree of consensus
found is to look for high numbers in the "valueless" category, and
adding together "desirable" and "essential" for the purpose of this
particular evaluation. Numbers are attached; I've taken the liberty
to mark the individuals' "valueless" responses by putting them into
boldface. Based on that, I'd suggest the following text instead of
the wording of the current draft:
>Not surprisingly in the light of the responses to question 8, more
>than half of the respondents found each individual data element
>now in the com/net/org whois to be essential. Across all
>categories and data elements, more than 70% of respondents
>selected either "essential" or "desirable". The largest portion
>of "valueless" responses to any part of this question was 27%, by
>individual respondents with regards to the registrant's name and
>address. 22% of individual respondents also found the
>administrative contact's name and address "valueless", 18% gave
>this answer with respect to the technical contact's name and
>address. The clear trend of satisfaction among respondents with
>the information currently provided to the public by Whois is
>evident in the responses to question 9 as well as 8.
The report should, for intellectual honesty reasons, probably also
mention some of the criticism received concerning the wording of
this question, and the wording of question 8.
Such criticism can, for instance, be found in some of the responses
to question 8 which are also attached. More of this may be in the
responses to question 20.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Submission #: 2 (other Both Commercial and Household)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: If a 'valid email address' is listed, then personally identifying 'postal addresses' are unnecessary.
Other fields are fine.
NOTE: You CANNOT LUMP TOGETHER, the NAME and POSTAL ADDRESS as you HAVE DONE in Question number Nine (9 - G, H, and I)!
The registrant's name is ESSENTIAL, but a 'personally identifiable' POSTAL ADDRESS is UNNECESSARY (not desireable, and not valueless)...
Some of those pieces are 'essential', and some are 'unnecessary' -- don't LUMP TOGETHER LIKE THAT!!!
Submission #: 26 (individual)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: Postal address is unnecessary for public disclosure. In the same vein of the improvement discussed above, email and voice telephone are also unnecessary -- provided (a) certified third parties (party) can be respondent/redirector of validated requests AND can initiate suspension of non-responders. Or something similar.
Submission #: 131 (other a, b, and d all apply)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: Physical address and telephone/fax information of individuals.
These can be maintained by the registrars to be available to law enforcement.
In the next question, sections G,H,I are overly inclusive. Names are desirable
and email addresses are essential.
Submission #: 199 (individual)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: The perosnally identifiable information should be able to be suppresed from all telemarketers, spammers, and junk mailers. Supposedly ICANN has set rules in place that prevents these abuses from happening, but they ICANN is not interested in pursuing complaints when it happens.
Submission #: 468 (commercial)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: postal address, voice telephone
Submission #: 570 (isp)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: All numbers (phone and fax) and addresses (email and postal). A secure contact method should be provided by the registrars; for example a form which sends email to the contact in question. This would put registrants in the position of being able to make their own decision about the provision of more detailed information. Indirect requests for detailed information should be requested formally from the registrar by fax or post, to make using the WHOIS as a data pool more difficult for direct marketers. (Please note I am unable to support this accurately in Question 9, because the question is phrased/laid out inaccurately. For that reason, I am choosing "desirable" for these fields, as a middle-of-the-road answer. In actuality, I see the names as "essential", but not the rest of the details.)
Submission #: 649 (individual)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: b?
g
h
i
note: "valueless" (below) is not an apt description. of course such information is valueable, to someone. also, the rating scale is lopsided toward "essential", in that the middle rating is positive. a more balanced scale would have 4 levels, with perhaps "undesirable" as #3 and a different description for #4, something that reflects the fact that this information should be treated more carefully (as a matter of privacy).
Submission #: 1216 (other a, b and d)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: E. The date of the original registration;
F. The expiration date of the registration;
G. The name and postal address of the registrant;
I. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD.
Submission #: 1507 (non-commercial)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: Poorly drafted questions - soem items are essential for business registrants but should be optional for non-businesses 9see items marked desirable below
Submission #: 2320 (governmental)
Usefulness: unnecessary
If "inadequate" or "unnecessary," what to drop/add: Disclosing the postal address and phone number of individuals presents certain crime risk issues. In effect you have a database of addresses where there are likely to be computers, which makes them burglary targets. Also, you could be placing at risk people who use domains for valid campaign political/purposes and who face attack from extremist opponents (eg. fringe racists, violent anti-abortion groups etc.)
Perhaps there should be some provision for an "ex-directory" system where registrant details can be held on a database that would be accessible to accredited law enforcement agencies but not accessible through the main whois system.
q9.xls
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|