RE: [dow1tf] additional questions?

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As my previous e-mails have stated, I am planning on turning around the next
draft for everyone to comment on.  I was supposed to get it out yesterday,
but it looks like it will be later on today.

Thanks.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:58 PM
To: Milton Mueller; dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1tf] additional questions?


How about we use a neutral word like "explain"? :-)

As to running language by you, I'm assuming  the chair should run the
reworded questions by everyone on the TF? I'd assume that is routine in the
work of the TF, and when everyone would see final draft language for
questions. 

Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036

202-457-2106v
281-664-9731 e-fax
202-360-1196 c
mcade@xxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:13 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1tf] additional questions?


Marilyn and others:
I agree with Marilyn that the question on 
regarding, cost, convenience, etc. could be
improved. Cost, convenience and "urgency" are
all related in various ways. But please run by me
how you update that question. 

Regarding the word "justify" the terms "needs and 
justifications" are in the Terms of Reference are 
they not? I don't think there is anything wrong with 
that word. We want and need "justifications" - that 
is the purpose of the task force. So I would oppose 
any change in that wording. I cannot see how it
prejudices anything - if we don't ask them for
justifications we won't get them. 


>>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx> 01/13/04 22:55 PM >>>

Just an online thought about the understanding of the questions. Not raising
any challenge to asking the questions themselves.

Question 8. I suggest that you might want to explain this question a bit
more. For instance, my paralegals will not understand this question as
presently worded. They don't know Port 43 as  "type of access". My techies
will, of course. It would be helpful to have it worded so that both
paralegals, techies, and just every day users, like me understand it .... 

Question 9:
I'm not sure this is as clear as you would like, Milton.  You've used the
word "convenience". For someone looking for contact data due to a consumer
fraud, the issue is urgency, really, not convenience... Maybe you could
think of a different way to neutrally convey this phrase so that it captures
a wider range of reasons..... 

Also, the use of the term "justifying" is a little pejorative. Users today
aren't asked to justify their access. Some might think they should be;
others might think they should not be asked to justify.... We are
considering whether and how to change existing policy. We need to use
neutral language in our questions. Could you use a different word and still
get the question across? 


Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036

202-457-2106v
281-664-9731 e-fax
202-360-1196 c
mcade@xxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:38 AM
To: dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dow1tf] additional questions?



8) If you could not use Port 43 Whois data what would you use as the 
closest substitute?

9) Is the most important factor justifying your access to whois data:
  a) cost 
  b) convenience of immediate online access
  c) no other way to get the needed data