<div>Please see inline below in <b><i>italicised bold</i></b>.<br></div><div><br></div><div>- Ayden</div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement<br></div><div>Local Time: August 23, 2016 8:02 PM<br></div><div>UTC Time: August 23, 2016 7:02 PM<br></div><div>From: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<br></div><div>To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br></div><div><br></div><div>On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:51:55PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:<br></div><div>
<br></div><div>
> As for your interpretation of the data set, that this translates into millions of individuals being aware of WHOIS, that might be the case or it might not be. We need to consider the margin of error, the fact that some people will answer in the affirmative to any question in a poll, and a range of other variables. There is no doubt that some people are using WHOIS and are aware it is out there. All that is debatable is the volume of them.<br></div><div>
> <br></div><div>
<br></div><div>
I find it more than a little strange to invoke a study to prove a<br></div><div>
point when it supports one's own preferred conclusion, and then to<br></div><div>
question the same study's methodological assumptions and so on when<br></div><div>
the study is used as evidence in someone else's argument.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><b><i>I was responding to what was an interpretation of the statistical data. Before conclusions can be drawn from it, we would be best served considering how the data was gathered and what it could reasonably tell us. I do not believe I misrepresented the data in my original email, but I do consider it a stretch to extrapolate this data in the manner that Greg had done.</i></b><b><i><br></i></b></div><div><b><i></i></b><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div><span style="line-height: 1.65em;">But in any case, it seems to me there's a fallacy of relevance at work</span></div><div>
here, because "Internet users" and "domain name registrants" are<br></div><div>
clearly significantly different classes, and therefore may behave<br></div><div>
differently in the face of the same question. It doesn't seem to me<br></div><div>
that a survey of Internet users tells us anything at all about domain<br></div><div>
name registrants.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><b><i>This is a point that I made in my original email.</i></b><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>
Moreover, whether most people know about whois is also irrelevant.<br></div><div>
The question is whether the RDS is fit to the purposes people have for<br></div><div>
it, not whether most people are participants in that wanting.<br></div><div>
<br></div><div>
So I regard this quest for numbers of people who know about the whois<br></div><div>
as a distraction. It doesn't help us to make any decision, and it<br></div><div>
injects a false numeracy into the discussion ("These are the numbers<br></div><div>
we have, so we'll cite those.")<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><b><i>It was an attempt to introduce empirical evidence into a discussion around whether or not there is familiarity with WHOIS. Linking to this study commissioned by ICANN was not intended to serve as a “distraction”. </i></b><b><i><br></i></b></div><div><b><i></i></b><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div><span style="line-height: 1.65em;">Best regards,</span></div><div>
<br></div><div>
A<br></div><div>
<br></div><div>
-- <br></div><div>
Andrew Sullivan<br></div><div>
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<br></div><div>
_______________________________________________<br></div><div>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br></div><div>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br></div><div>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>