RE: [nc-whois] edits to the draft

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Thomas and others: 

I've suggested very small changes, largely organizational and have added in
a couple of folks who are actively engaged, but missed the call today;
you'll see a couple of additional names added.   

Use Roman numerals for the headings:

I. Introduction

A. History
B. Mission
C. Brief description of where we are, that this is the first interim report,
preliminary in nature, that the survey isn't a statistically valid survey,
but has the following characteristics, etc. etc.


one change to the Introduction/History/Mission: I volunteered my co chair:
Antonio Harris, ISPCP and myself.  I'm now adding in Tim Denton, Registrars,
and moving Y.J. to this section. [Rationale, she was part of the group from
the beginning.]

BELOW, I PRIMARILY ONLY NUMBERED THE SECTIONS
II. Participation in the Survey  

III. User Requirements for WHOIS (qq5-10)ADDING KEN STUBBS HERE. Rationale:
Ken knows a lot about this topic, AND, this adds in a third person to this
team. :-)

IV. Uniformity in WHOIS access (qq 11-15)

V. Marketing and Bulk access to WHOIS data (qq 16, 17)
NOTE, I merely reordered this because question 16 is about marketing...


VI.  Third Party Agents (qq 18, 19)  Troy Dow, BC, Bret Fausett, BC,and
Oscar Robles-Garay, ccTLD. [NOTE TO THIS TEAM: I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THE
ASSIGNMENT AND WILL HELP TO GET YOU STARTED.  BUT THIS FREES TONY AND ME UP
TO FOCUS ON THE OVERVIEW, ETC.  

VII.  Other Comments Received:  Question 20

ADD A SECTION:
VIII. Final Conclusions and Recommendations: This section is yet to be
developed

then follow that with the 
IX   Members of the TF -- Glen can provide that

X.  Appendix [ where we can add in data reports, etc. ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:22 PM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] edits to the draft


Folks,

please find attached a version of the bulk access draft which 
contains (1) the edits suggested during the telephone conference, 
(2) a skeleton of the final preliminary report, (3) the work 
assignments agreed upon, and (4) some additions which try to take 
into account some of our discussions.

More specifically, I have included the wording of question 4 (and 
will add the results tonight).  I have also moved the statistical 
considerations behind all the questions' results to better align the 
structure with the one of the other chapters.  (Sorry, the 
bluelining of changes took this entire paragraph...)

In the bulk access chapter, I have changed the title to "Bulk and 
Marketing Access to WHOIS Data".  I have replaced "opt-in or better" 
by "opt-in or stricter", as suggested by Steve metalitz.  I have 
replaced numbers spelled out in words in the analysis of free-form 
responses by digits, since someone didn't find them during the call. 
In the same paragraph, I have replaced "89% of responses" by "89% of 
the 99 free-form responses".

In the findings section, I have integrated some changes which mirror 
the discussions during the call, but were not explicitly agreed 
upon.  In particular, I have changed the heading to "Findings and 
Discussin of Results".  I have changed the recommendation to be "to 
review ICANN's WHOIS policy with respect to bulk access", and I have 
included a paragraph which was based on our discussion of what 
question 16 actually means.

For question 17.a, I have included a discussion of the semantic 
problem Steve Metalitz and I had with the wording of that question. 
I then note that the conclusion tated in the report (namely, that 
some kind of bulk access provision should be maintaned) is certainly 
backed by both interpretations of the question, and that more 
specific conclusions may be derived after further discussion.

An analogous, but shorter note can be found in the discussion of 
question 17.b.


Please send your comments on these edits to the list ASAP.  One 
particular question I'm interested in is what I should do about the 
cautionary statements concerning the gTLD and non-commercial 
constituencies.  Do these still apply, or can you agree with the 
current text?

(I also suppose I should start to change the file name.)

Greetings,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/