Re: FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV

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

Thank you.

I have reviewed the changes you are suggesting, and suggest the  
following way of adopting the underlying concerns (see the attached 
Word document for details).

 - Analysis of free-form responses to q. 17.d:  Add a first sentence 
   to the paragraph, "The free-form part of question 17.d asked 
   those who had demanded a change in the existing bulk access 
   provisions (about half of all respondents) to elaborate on the 
   kind of change they desire. Across all categroies ofrespondents, 
   ..."  
   
   I have no problem with the other changes you suggest to this 
   section.
   
 - Section E, "Issues identified." I don't think that preservation  
   of public access belongs into the "privacy" bullet point.   
   Instead, I've added a new bullet point: "Access: Various  
   respondents stressed the need for continued public access to  
   whois data, and for the enforcement of bulk access provisions."
   
 - Section F, "Findings and Discussion of Results."  With all due 
   respect, I believe that it's sufficient to mention the result 
   from the yes-no part of that question once in a short, ten-line 
   summary of the results.  I've changed the text like this:
   
   >> Taking error margins into account, the yes-no part of this 
   question leads to an undecided result or to thin majorities in 
   some of the categories: Half of the respondents suggest that the 
   bulk access provisions should be changed, half suggest they 
   shouldn't.

   The result of the evaluation of the free-form responses which were 
   given by those who do suggest a change of bulk access provisions  
   look very similar to the results from question 16: Between 62% and 
   82% (or a total of 75%) of these respondents call for opt-in  
   policies or no access to data for resale or marketing purposes;  
   additionally, some responses more generally ask for stricter 
   privacy protection.  There was very little support for improving 
   the present opt-out mechanisms (< 10%), and close to no support 
   for a more relaxed privacy policy among those who demanded a 
   change to the existing bulk access provisions. <<

   I suppose that this wording makes the numbers clear enough.

I hope you folks can agree with these changes, so we can close the  
substantial part of chapter IV - of course, some numbers and charts  
will still have to be added.

PS: The software I use can deal quite nicely with change tracking à  
la Word, and that approach makes things easier.  The problems mostly 
occur with advanced formatting and OLE objects.  I'm not just 
relying on a PDA this time.  ;)

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





On 2002-06-18 09:45:21 -0400, Steve Metalitz wrote:
>From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>
>To: "'NC-WHOIS@DNSO.ORG'" <NC-WHOIS@dnso.org>
>Subject: FW: [nc-whois] revised chapters I.C, I.D-and-E, IV
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:45:21 -0400
>X-No-Spam: whitelist
>
>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>
>

IV_06102002-sjm.doc