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

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

I agree that it is flawed; to add another example:
Question 9 contains superfluous single questions like
9.A (should the Whois contain the SLD?) and then question
groups like 9.I (name, postal address, e-mail address,
voice telephone number, fax number) where the necessary
differentiation is not possible. I might want to keep
the name of the administrative contact in the database,
but not his or her phone number, or I may want to
have opt-in or opt-out mechanisms.

Additionally, the explanations are in ICANNese language
at the extreme.

I hope that both respondents and those analysing the
comments make good use of the free text areas!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

Michael Froomkin wrote on 14.06.01, 21:17:53:
> 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.



_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
--
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