Re: [nc-whois] [urgent] report update

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

I'll upload a revised version of the report ASAP.

On 2002-03-12 05:07:19 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:

>Besides some rudimentary changes everyone can possibly live with, i fail
>to see where as i made several (imo) legitimate objections to change
>without consent, that this should be done.

Let's try to get something which converges.

>for the mission statement, i refer to the email earlier from Paul M
>Kane, and the introduction as drafted earlier. there is no overstepping
>in any way possible, the mission statement, for which i specifically
>asked some months ago is just that, the statement, a copy of that (and
>it's changes afterwords should suffice, interpretations are made while
>working, not in reflecting the statement.

Change of wording: "... may undertake, in order to provider guidance 
on what further steps should be taken in the development of policy 
recommendations related to WHOIS."

>if data is specific (and all there is) then, after approving the 
>way of gathering the findings, one can not return to that and say; 
>the findings are not statistical. 

That specific part is from Marilyn's original text.

>also on that point; there are 3 GA rep's on the whois tf atm, (to 
>my understanding) and i would like to have that reflected as such 
>:)

Changed with pleasure.

The note now reads: "Note: The GA representatives would like to 
emphasize that nothing in the results evaluated so far gives reason 
to believe that the findings from section IV would have to be 
revised in future versions of this report."

>for page 10, i feel it more compelling to conclude that 33 % uses whois
>very frequently then 40 % does not use heavily.

"Also, 31% of respondents use whois one or several times per day, 
and 26% use it on a weekly basis, while 40% of them said that they 
only use WHOIS occasionally, or never."

>as for page 12; as i pointed out in my earlier reaction to Miriam, 
>the numbers remain nonsense.(SIC) for a very simple reason: we 
>have no means of ascertaining whether all respondents were merely 
>working in that "industry" or representing it. the question was:

I don't like that part, either. ;-) However, several participants 
have been insisiting on some remark on this.  Change of wording: 
"...the total number of ENTITIES possibl[e]Y REPRESENTED...".  This 
is more accurate, so I don't believe there'll be any objections 
against this.

Change in the footnote: Replace "is not the correct model" by "may 
not be the correct model", replace "yields" by "may yield".

>As for page 21: again, there are more reps from the GA atm, also i 
>believe that some interesting stuff CAN be drawn from that 
>question and it's responses, we simply have not yet spend the time 
>on it, as on other parts of the report, therefore a simple 
>statement that the taskforce before coming to any conclusions on 
>that question (if and when possible) has to do more work on that, 
>seems more appropriate.

Change of wording: "... analysis, SOME OF which MAY not BE possible 
..."

>page 27: in the "desirable" category this is not the case, only in the
>less desirable and valueless categories there are significant
>differences, which are easily explained, or have individual users the
>same interest in the data that the other groups have ?

In some of the information, there are clear deviations in the 
individual users' category, which should be elborated upon, even 
when they are easily explained.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
nc-whois document repository:     <http://does-not-exist.org/whois/>