[nc-whois] WHOIS TF draft/ teleconf 11 FEB 2002

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

DRAFT                                   DRAFT


February 11, 2002
WHOIS Conference Call

Participants:
Marilyn Cade
Antonio Harris
Gail DeLuca - AT&T, assisting with charts, participating only in this call
Tim Denton
Karen Elizaga
Bret Fausett
Tony Harris
Marie Juliano, assistant to Marilyn Cade
Kristy McKee
Steve Metalitz
Thomas Roessler
Ken Stubbs
Abel Wisman

Review of purpose of call - continue to discuss basket categories; review of
analytic summaries from the charts which Marilyn's staff prepared; review of
interim report outline and assignments.

Marilyn asked that that group look closely at the minutes and make sure that
individual inputs were captured and summarized correctly. Comments to
Marilyn and Glen for changes via email. Note from Marilyn: No comments were
received on the previous minutes. They are now final.

Format of call:  review the two sets of view graphs Marilyn provided
earlier.

Set I: 6 Viewgraphs from earlier Kane presentation:
History for all:  Initially, there was a DNSO Committee with heavy staff
involvement; their work led to the NC chartering a Task Force, initially
chaired by Paul Kane.

A short report was provided by Paul Kane in Montevideo, using a very short
set of view graphs/provided to the group as background. [They will be
provided to archives].

These initial charts were provided to the TF along with the new pie charts
(Set II).
Marilyn noted that some of the data in Paul's charts is unique and should be
added into Set II. The group concurred and Gail will integrate for the next
round of view graphs.

Review of viewgraphs and discussion:

The group generally approved of the approach to present the analytic data;
with a modification suggested by Thomas the simple Yes/No answers would be
presented as bar charts, rather than pie charts.   Gail will incorporate
suggested formatting changes in next round. She may present both options in
a few cases for the group to consider.

The group agreed that the full question should be presented, along with
options. All charts will include the total number of response in a standard
format/location, and will also include a simple note of the percentage of
narrative responses received.  Explanation of the narratives will be dealt
with separately in terms of how to present in the materials/viewgraphs.

Questions 2, 5, and X are missing final tabulations and Marilyn noted that
for follow up with ICANN staff.

Discussion of "baskets":

Tony and Marilyn asked Steve and Thomas to discuss their email proposals for
the full group.  The proposal was made that for the interim report, that
questions 8.1, 10, and 17 would be the focus for basketing.  Some discussion
about 8.2 led to an agreement that there would be a linking statement
between 8.2 and 9 rather than a separate "basketing" of 8.2.  In particular,
Karen indicated that it seemed inequitable to focus on the "inadequate"
response as opposed to the "unnecessary" response in light of the fact that
the % responding "unnecessary" exceeded the % responding "inadequate."  In
the end, the linking statement was agreed to, but particular attention
should be focused on the existing basketing in the narratives to the answers
within 9.

The group discussed whether it was too early to basket versus too early to
interpret. The group agreed to support the co-chair's recommendation to
basket the three questions, but to refrain from interpretations until after
Ghana.

General agreement from Thomas, Kristy, Ken that  too early to spend a lot of
time interpreting. need to identify significant issues first, in moving
forward.

Marilyn:  as member: believe that we need to have robust discussions about
interpretations; not on this call; schedule for after baskets. Is there
agreement?

Discussion:  Tony:  two members say don't basket yet; Marilyn has a
recommendation to basket but not analyze/interpret.

Thomas: don't oppose basketing at this time.
Discussion from others concurred with basketing of the three questions.

Conclusion: basket the three priority questions: 8/1; 10, 17. {link 8.2 to 9
with segue statement}

Discussion:  Assignment is that each will read 300; MOST have divided the
300 into blocks of 100. Of the 100 you are reading of the Statistical 300,
focus on 8.1; 10, 17 for "basketing".  Next call: assumption is that you
will have read all of your 100 of the Statistical 300, or some significant
number. Group agreed.
Basketing would be concluded for just those three and discussion about
agreement, discrepancies, etc.
Some narrative will be drafted for Ghana report; exact detailed content
remains to be developed.

For Basket categories:

Question 8.1:  rely on Steve's email.

Question 10: Steve had suggested baskets   in his email; the group agreed to
use the categories provided in Question 15 as the "baskets" for question 10.

Question 17: The group will use the 7 choices provided by Laurence as noted
in Steve's memo. Significant discussion about whether we could collapse into
2 only as Tony had done.
Conclusion: keep 7 categories, but maintain flexibility to develop or
summarize into smaller categories in conclusions. Not to be resolved now.

Discussion of Sectoral breakdown/analysis discussion:
Abel: sectoral breakdown still needed and more instructive. Marilyn
acknowledged that she had not correctly understood Abel's previous
recommendation and agreed to work with Gail to get a summary of the sectoral
analysis for the group in a single format.  She and Tony have advised the
group that they are not asking the ICANN staff for narrative responses
specific to the sectoral responses since the 3000 include the sectoral
identification.   Action:  Work Item with Gail/Marilyn

Discussion of Draft Outline:

The group was generally comfortable with the outline and assignments.
Marilyn and Tony need to draft a request for volume reports on WHOIS access
to be sent to the Registry and Registrar Constituencies. Action Item:
Marilyn/Tony

II.C.. Marilyn and Tony noted that Miriam declined their request to assist
with this section, noting that her constituency has other priorities.
Marilyn noted that she and Tony can help to coordinate but will seek other
volunteers to participate in this section. It may need to be postponed until
next round of drafting.


II.D Approach Agreed to.

III:  Analytical charts on 3000 responses.  Marilyn's contributions were
largely supported by the group, with changes as noted earlier. Marilyn and
Tony asked that Thomas, Abel, and Kristy in particular be available to
comment on format and approach in the presentation. Gail will try to get a
new version out early Tuesday.

[Kristy will post PDF files to those who need them, due to data errors in
some of the transmissions.]
III.B: Subjective review of 300 Statistical Responses, FOCUSED on 8.1; 10,
17.

Analyzing the 300:
The group's assignment  is still to read whatever segment of the 300 which
their constituency has assigned them, with a priority to basket 8.1; 10, 17,
based on the categories described earlier. Twenty was not dealt with but
will be discussed on next call.  The plans are to have a narrative
discussion only on these three questions for the interim report.

Drafters for this section are: Steve, Tony, Oscar, Troy, Thomas, Tim.
It was agreed that they could not do any drafting until the next call takes
place with a report back from the "readers" on the basketing.

III.C and Beyond:  The rest of the draft report wasn't discussed in detail.

Sectoral review remains as a topic of further discussion. Marilyn noted that
the analytical sectoral breakdowns can be easily incorporated.  There is not
a final decision about separate narrative analysis by sector. Some of the TF
are convinced that a sectoral analysis will be worthwhile; others are not
sure; and others view the priori as a cross submission view.  In the
meantime, the analytical sectoral responses will be prepared in a single
format. [Gail/Marilyn]

Comment on Minority Reports to clarify: This section will remain in the
draft outline. Miriam had objected to including it. Marilyn and Tony
explained that the minority report section is needed in the event others,
outside the TF, present minority reports, which is always possible.



Reminder:  Next call Tuesday, 2/19

The purpose of this call will be to review the basketing on the three
questions.

Next Meetings Discussion:
Chairs: Recommend that we have another call the following week (one hour)
Week before Ghana - another one hour call
Marie will circulate dates for both these calls, as well as possible face to
face in Ghana.

Other Items: Marilyn advised the TF that it is possible that the NC will
send to the TF a topic related to bulk access for consideration and
response.  Steve commented about the relevance of this to the TF's work and
agreed to provide the relevant URL.

Next Steps:
Steve - will send out relevant URL in relation to bulk WHOIS issue mentioned
above.
Individuals are to move ahead in reading their "100" of the Statistical 300,
focused on 8.1; 10, 17 for basketing.
Marilyn and Gail will take next steps on the statistical charts, and will
develop a chart on the sectoral responses.
Marie will send out a reminder on the 2/19 call, and schedule the two
additional calls.