Re: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

[Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

This survey is very badly designed, and has several signs of bias.  I wish whoever
wrote this had consulted a professional.  Here are just some examples:

Question 9 is a loaded question: the opposite of essential is not
valueless but "unnecessary".  In asking the question the way you do you
leave no space for those who believe information may have "value" but
still not be appropriate to be published.  Almost any information has
value. The question is whether the value exceeds the privacy cost.  This
entire survey is designed to minimize the chances that this view could
be expressed.  Who is going to say that the name of the registrant is
'valueless' - that does not mean, however, that it is either 'essential'
or 'desireable'.  This is, I repeat, a very biased an inappropriate
question.

Question 5 leaves out the possibility that what one wants is a technical
contact to reach about problems e.g. spam, rather than the spammer.  The
entire survey minimizes the use of 'whois' for IP numbers, focussing on
domain names.

Question 17 gives multiple choice options for the status quo, and the
extension of the status quo, but not for the obvious choice of
*increasing* privacy.  That requires survey respondents to type text of
their own in a box.  Again, the bias is against making it easy for
people to express pro-privacy views -- yet it could hardly be a surprise
that this is the main issue with the bulk access provisions of the
contract.

Question 19 does not say whether the option of third-party registration
would (a) be costly and (b) without prejudice to any legal rights.  More
importantly, the survey fails to ask if people want an "unlisted"
registration (disclose but don't publish) as exists for telephone
registrations in many countries.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Thanks, Marilyn!
>
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote on 13.06.01, 23:59:40:
> > Okay, ideas for work:     There is a questionnaire from the DNSO on WHOIS.
> > How about we post it, and encourage all XXX GA members to fill it in,
> > factually.  Small request. But a deliverable.  I know, we all have opinions.
> > I'm interested in facts... let's learn together.
>
> I support this very much, and I'm already trying to
> spread knowledge about the survey to groups who are
> interested in the Whois issue, but who aren't necessarily
> reading mailing-lists or icann-announce lists.
>
> English: http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm
> Spanish: http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-es-10jun01.htm
> German (my inoff.):  http://www.icannchannel.de/docs/whois.htm
>
> Another important issue is .org, another deliverable.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/
>
> Last but not least: the At Large Study.
> http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml
>
> > Secondly, how about we ask the GA members what their characteristics are:
> > in broad categories, so we can say: the GA is representative of:   XX SMEs;
> > XX Corporations; XX non profits/civil libertarian organizations; XX
> > individual concerned about YYY; XX universities; XX... please realize I'm
> > struggling with categories... my only purpose for this is to say: let's see
> > if we can say "we are representative and of what, and then we can also use
> > the data to recruit... participation.
>
> I'm not so sure about the idea of 'representativeness'
> here -- some people are already claiming to represent
> organizations with 100,000+ members or worldwide offices.
> But if you put in terms of 'characteristics', I would
> be interested, too. E.g. how many organizations and
> companies from the DNSO constituencies are participating?
>
> > thirdly, I wondered if the GA would agree to schedule itself BEFORE the
> > constituencies so that it can be more of a vehicle into the Constituencies,
> > as we "used" to do... [I know, I suffer from being around tooooo long]...
> > but that made the GA really more useful/meaningful... means that the
> > constituencies don't report in, but instead, take input from...
>
> Are you referring to the 'physical meeting GA' or to the
> discussions? My impression from the Stockholm meeting is
> that those two are totally unconnected: Very few people in
> the K2 room in Stockholm thought that they somehow 'belonged
> to the GA', and very few people from the online GA were there.
> If you are referring to the online GA, I'm afraid the time
> pressure both on GA and constituencies will only allow for
> parallel work...
>
> > Fourthly, how about inviting a presentation from the IAB/IETF (happy to help
> > to plan) on the issues which are really critical, from technical standpoint.
> > We have started this in the ISPC and BC, and it is really a  great learning
> > and educational experience.  And, of course, we have some folks already in
> > the GA who are leaders in these issues... and could ask their help in
> > getting very high level presenters...
>
> This probably makes sense in the physical meetings, but
> not so much in online discussions where we can (a) link
> to papers and presentations and (b) certainly have enough
> people with a strong technical background, including the
> IETF chair. Additionally, there is of course not /the/
> technical standpoint on issues like internationalized
> domain names.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
                Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--




--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html