<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style id="eMClientCss">BLOCKQUOTE.cite {
PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #cccccc 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px
}
BLOCKQUOTE.cite2 {
PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #cccccc 1px solid; MARGIN-TOP: 3px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px
}
.plain PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: monospace; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal
}
.plain TT {
FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: monospace; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal
}
.plain PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
.plain TT {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
BODY {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<span style="COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<div>So, requests 3 and 4 on our list were:</div>
<div>3 - Can providers give the WG some general information about
the percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful </div>
<div>4 - For Q4, do providers also have information about the type
of claims those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP
claim etc.?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And I agreed to provide some colour as to why these are
probably difficult questions to answer. The below should be
true for most providers (and really, for any support system),
but should any Registrar colleagues disagree, feel free to chime
in.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The concise reason is that compliance desks are optimized for
throughput of issues, and not for policy related reporting. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In more detail - </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Compliance (or whatever dept that deals with issues around
domains) may not use a ticketing system. If the provider is
small enough, it may just be an email address. There is no
obligation for anyone to use a system that is even capable of
producing data, or from which data may easily be extracted. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even if they do use a system robust enough to allow for
reporting, the data we're requesting may not typically be
captured in the course of an investigation, or even useful for
the running of the business. For question 3, for example,
'successful disclosure' is mostly relevant to the requester, but
is not an attribute required to close the ticket. That
information may be captured as text inside a description, but if
it's not a specific flag on the ticket, it's very very difficult
to report on accurately. We at Tucows occasionally mine the
text of the tickets related to our retail operations, and the
results are always considerably noisy.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Question 4 presumes that requester type as well as as issue
type are ticket attributes. I would think that some such
systems do capture the issue type (IP, defamation, offensive,
etc etc) but each service provider is going to have differently
defined categories that may cause difficulty in the
aggregation. As well, just because a claim is made, doesn't
mean it has any particular validity which impacts
categorization. If someone claims IP infringement, but our
investigation yields no such issue, does the category still
stand? As well, because requests are usually dealt with
manually, categorizing requesters may be unlikely, aside from a
distinction between LEA and 'other'.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lastly, as should be clear from previous discussions, there
are very few black and white issues that we see. Given the
variety of issues and the multitude of interest areas that they
cross, straightforward classification is exceptionally
difficult, and analysis that attempts to place requests into
distinct buckets is going to lose a substantial amount of
detail. Nonetheless, I'm in the process of looking into our
system at the moment to see if possible to sketch out some
trends. Unfortunately, we migrated to a new platform earlier
this year, so there is not much to draw from.<br>
<br>
<br>
Graeme<br>
</div>
<div id="signature">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">_________________________
<div>Graeme Bunton </div>
<div>Manager, Management Information Systems </div>
<div>Manager, Public Policy </div>
<div>Tucows Inc. </div>
<div>PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 </div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</span>
</body>
</html>