FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

I suggest a few changes to the draft of chapter IV.  In the attached, these
are found in CAPS (new mateial) and [brackets] (proposed deletions).  For
the most part, these would reflect the fact that half the respondents did
not call for a change in bulk access policies (Q. 17d), and that "stricter"
privacy protection is not necessarily "better."   

Steve Metalitz

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 6:57 PM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Cc: Kristy McKee
Subject: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV


Please find attached revisions to chapters I.C, I.D, I.E, IV.  I'm  
also including the spreadsheet I used to generate the numbers for  
the narrative on question 17.d.  

(BTW, it turns out that an inconsistency had crept into the  
preliminary report's evaluation of that question; instead of 89% it  
should apparently have been 85% there who wanted opt-in or stricter  
protection.  I have no idea how this could happen.)

In the final report, the results are slightly less clear than in the 
preliminary report, but they are still strong - in particular if you 
look at _all_ responses by extrapolating (see spreadsheet for  
details).

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

I.C_06102002.doc

I.DandE_06102002.doc

IV_06102002.doc

q17d.xls