ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

  • To: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?
  • From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:52:41 -0400
  • Cc: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcSmZsAuBlybZuwpQAOxk3PoDOg6agAH9OJQ
  • Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

Dear Thomas and other TF colleagues

I apologize for missing the call. I was in a prep meeting for the upcoming ITU 
conference, and was planning to step out, but the Ambassador arrived just at 
the time I planned to join the call at 11, and I was trapped. APOLOGIES to all. 

However, perhaps I can contribute online. 

surveying or polling registrants is indeed expensive, and unlikely to result in 
a quick, or statistically valid response. The earlier tf found that in their 
survey. Even organizatins that are registrants are reluctant to respond to 
surveys, and we eally need to be very careful abotu putting registrars in the 
position of taking polls. many registrants would ignore, or find offensive to 
receive repeated questionaires.\

We cna do a valid study, through contracing with someone like Ben Edelman, but 
that takes a littel $$...

I wonder if Thomas' suggestion isn't a good compromise? 

202-360-1196 c

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:54 PM
To: David W. Maher
Cc: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Moving forward on "conspicuous notice"?

On 2004-09-29 11:31:37 -0500, David W. Maher wrote:

>  Success Metric: Significant increase of registrant awareness of
>  WHOIS, as measured by an appropriate process to be adopted by
>  ICANN, e.g.,either self-reporting by registrars, or data
>  reviewed by ICANN staff (or outside contractor) through the
>  registration process or a representative sample of registrars.

We should not conflate *implementation* of the policy and *success*
of the policy.  Reviewing registrars' practices yields data on
compliance; that's important for policy enforcement.

Polling registrants could yield data on the policy's actual
effectiveness, and provides important feed-back to the GNSO: Has the
policy, once implemented, *actually* achieved its stated purpose?

If you guys don't want to go so far as to actually recommend polling
registrants, then I'd suggest to remove any specifics from the
success metric part, and just leave things at this:

        Success Metric: Significant increase of registrant awareness
        of WHOIS.

Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>