[Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 16 Feb - for your consideration

[Kim G. von Arx]

Hi All: 

My apologies for the long silence from my end.  I did follow the email threads and I just saw (and saw in an email a week or so ago) a comment that Bill had some comments about applicable laws, but I have not seen any emails/comments from Bill on the list wrt to "applicable laws thus far.  I may have missed it.  The only discussion I saw so far was on "consumer trust".   

Further, I looked at the questionnaire and I am quite confused with the questions, e.g.., "government executive agency (like police)"  What does that mean? If we are talking about the executive branch of a government then "regulatory authority, secrete service, military intelligence services" would also be included in the "executive". 

Also, I do not understand what this question means:  "Which kind of law would you consider as law enforcement access to WHOIS data"  Is that supposed to mean "What laws should be the basis for WHOIS access?"  If so, we need to reword it quite a bit to make it clear to native and non-native speakers.  However, I am not sure what that question is trying to achieve in the first place.  Further some important laws are missing from that list such as intellectual property laws (there are very important distinctions among real, personal, corporeal, incorporeal... property), regulatory laws, admiralty, etc 

The same goes for the question following the above noted one: "Which kind of government would you allow law enforcement access to WHOIS data"

Then the questions wrt to the definition itself: 

1. What does "enforcement only" mean? What examples does that relate to in the previous questions? 
2. What does "direct government bodies" mean?  What examples does that relate to in the previous questions? 
3. What does it mean to be "subject to judicial an open civil overview"?  What examples does that relate to in the previous questions? 

Finally, three more comments about the questionnaire in general: 

1. We have to make sure that non-native speakers can understand it (unless, of course, it will get translated in to x-number of languages)
2. We have to make sure that we use less colloquialism to ensure that credibility is maintained.  
3. We have to make sure that the questionnaire meets the general "usability" test/standard at the moment it is somewhat confusing. 

Anyway, thanks for the hard work on all of this so far I really appreciate it.

Kim 



__________________________________

kim at vonarx.ca
+1 (613) 286-4445

"Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."







On 23 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Alice Jansen wrote:

> Dear Review Team Members,
> 
> Please find attached the preliminary report of your last conference call for your consideration.
> 
> Kindly note that Kathy has reviewed this document.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Very best regards
> 
> Alice
> 
> 
> <WHOIS REVIEW TEAM Prel Rep - 16 Feb.doc>_______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110223/c4e49b41/attachment.html