[nc-whois] Chapter V

["Dow, Troy" <DowT@mpaa.org>]

Title: Chapter V

Attached is the draft chapter V.  Note that the "gems" still need to be appended to this section.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@iipa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:45 AM
To: 'NC-WHOIS@DNSO.ORG'
Subject: FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV

I suggest a few changes to the draft of chapter IV.  In the attached, these
are found in CAPS (new mateial) and [brackets] (proposed deletions).  For
the most part, these would reflect the fact that half the respondents did
not call for a change in bulk access policies (Q. 17d), and that "stricter"
privacy protection is not necessarily "better."  

Steve Metalitz

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 6:57 PM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Cc: Kristy McKee
Subject: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV

Please find attached revisions to chapters I.C, I.D, I.E, IV.  I'm 
also including the spreadsheet I used to generate the numbers for 
the narrative on question 17.d. 

(BTW, it turns out that an inconsistency had crept into the 
preliminary report's evaluation of that question; instead of 89% it 
should apparently have been 85% there who wanted opt-in or stricter 
protection.  I have no idea how this could happen.)

In the final report, the results are slightly less clear than in the
preliminary report, but they are still strong - in particular if you
look at _all_ responses by extrapolating (see spreadsheet for 
details).

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

 

Part V.doc