RE: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] RE: Draft Final Report

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Berry,

Thanks to you and all your colleagues who worked on preparing this draft.

My only comment is perhaps a belated reflection  of ambiguity in a couple of 
the questions.  On page 17, I question whether the results " indicate that the 
ability to search on attributes of WHOIS was not an important feature."  This 
partly depends on how responses of 3 (on a 1-5 scale) are counted.  But more 
significantly, the question itself gives only two examples - street name or 
post code.  I have never heard of anyone seeking to identify all the 
registrants who give an address on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, which 
is about 80 blocks long and runs through almost the entire city.  If the choice 
had been "street address," that might have yielded a different result, since 
there could be a reason to know which domain names had been registered by a 
resident of 1600 Pennsylvania  Ave. NW.  I suggest this sentence be dropped.

Then a few pages later comes the statement, "over 53% respondents [sic] 
indicated positive interest in advanced search options of WHOIS."  (p. 25).  
This seems inconsistent with the foregoing.

Then comes the statement on the same page,  "the current searchable WHOIS meets 
the need of over half of respondents requesting advanced search options."  But 
this is deduced from the fact that these respondents indicated that domain name 
was most important.  The problem is that searching by domain name is not an 
"advanced search option" === it is the plain vanilla option, as is stated in 
the first sentence of section 4.7.  Domain name actually should not have been 
included at all in the ranking question.  We would then be able to say which 
additional options were the most cited.

My recommendation is to drop the first two sentences of the paragraph at the 
bottom of page 25, and begin the next sentence "The additional search 
capabilities most often requested were "Name Server," etc. " and end the 
sentence "after Domain Name which, as noted above, is the only search 
capability commonly made available by registries or registrars today."

I hope these comments are helpful, and thanks again for bringing this across 
the finish line.

Steve Metalitz

From: owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:44 AM
To: gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] RE: Draft Final Report

WSWG Members,

This is a reminder for the WG to provide feedback and/or proposed changes to 
the draft Final Report, which outlines the survey results and proposed 
recommendations (see thread below).  If possible, please document any proposed 
changes directly into the Word document and I can compile all requests into a 
master version of the report.  Also, if WG members feel we should conduct a 
conference call to discuss the report in more detail, please advise and I can 
setup a doodle poll and conference logistics based upon an agreed date and time.

Ideally, we should target the 5 September 2013 GNSO Council meeting to conclude 
this effort in the absence of substantial changes to the Final Report.  
Documents and motions are due 26 August 2013.  If we can submit the final 
report to the Council no later than 19 August that should give Council members 
adequate time to review the results and recommendations to adequately consider 
the motion in time for the September meeting.  I have also attached a draft 
motion for the WG to consider.

I welcome your feedback and suggestions.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb


From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 21:33
To: gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Draft Final Report

WSWG,

Please find attached the latest draft of the WSWG final report.  I had hoped to 
finish the report in time for the GNSO Council to consider it at the Durban 
meeting, but I doubt there will be enough time for you to review and provide 
input to meet the deadline.  Regardless, there is a 15 minute slot on the 
Saturday Council meeting to brief them where we stand with this effort.  
Because the Council is not meeting in August, we will have to target the 5 
September Council meeting.

A few notes about the report prior to your review:

1.       The report is a condensed version of the survey results that includes 
charts showing a visual representation of the results.  The text-only format we 
started with in version 1 became stale given the size of the survey.  Importing 
the graphics is what took the most time in completing the compilation.

2.       The report only refers to WHOIS instead of DNRD naming conventions as 
defined in SAC051 primarily because this survey effort was started prior to 
that reports release.  Using DNRD also decreased continuity flipping between 
the terms.  However, where we used the DNRD term in our original questions, I 
did not make the change as to not alter the original form of the question being 
asked.

3.       The proposed recommendations in the report only request that the 
survey results be shared with the larger WHOIS efforts underway (EWG, IETF, 
Thick WHOIS) to inform their deliberations at their discretion.  At this point 
it is difficult to determine how the Council could handle any specific 
technical requirement recommendations.  However, I defer to the WG to provide 
input on any additional recommendations that may be necessary.

4.       The report does not refer to a public comment period being opened on 
these results.  Given the nature of the results and the proposed 
recommendations, it may not be necessary.  However, I also defer to the WG to 
make the final determination.

5.       Section 4.2 is a list of each technical requirement extracted from the 
original final report.  Should we attempt to summarize the results of each 
question from each requirement section of the survey and provide a general 
observation that "yes" the overall requirement is supported, or "no" it was not 
supported based on the results of the survey?  Given some of the results where 
no answer was provided could steer us to more subjective conclusions.

6.       Lastly, should the report contain references to larger WHOIS efforts?  
For example, on the section regarding Thick WHOIS, should a reference be made 
that WG is aware of this initiative, or is it better to just only provide the 
results given that there is a recommendation to send the results of this survey 
to the Thick WHOIS WG (See p.52)?

I look forward to your feedback and any input you may have.  Please provide any 
edits within the Word doc itself, and I can import your suggested changes into 
a master Word document in preparation for the final version.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb