[Rt4-whois] Thoughts/edits on the Full Report

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi All,
I wanted to share a running stream of edits as I review the full document:

    - I like it. I think all the elements are there!

    - We need to consolidate in interesting ways.

    - We need a flow --- a rearranged order to lay out a very clear
    picture of our work, research and analysis for new and older readers

Specific ideas

 1.

    Too many Definitions. I brought "5) WHOIS PARTICIPANTS: Data
    Producers; Data Controllers; Data Processors" into the Policy
    chapter and put it in a table. Recommendation: this section from the
    Definitions.

 2.

    Remove Scope of Work, Section 7, as a section covering the same
    definitions above.

 3.

    Relocate the Consumer Study to a later chapter, complete with its
    definitions (please see below). It deserves a home all its own, not
    stuck at the bottom of the Scope of Work Chapter.

 4.

    Start a new page for every new chapter.

 5.

    After Policy Chapter, keep the Compliance Chapter (as compliance
    flows from Policy).

 6.

    After Policy Chapter, consider placing the IDN chapter. IDN issues
    are closely related to policy and compliance -- it's an existing
    policy issue complicated by translations and transcription problems.

Then I would enter the "Study Part of the Report." Is Existing Policy 
serving the Legitimate Needs of LE and promoting consumer trust? Here I 
would recommend:

 7.

    A Law Enforcement Chapter: with a write-up of Sharon's Law
    Enforcement study and its findings. Am I missing it within the text?

 8.

    Include in LE Chapter the sections of Peter's current Gap Analysis
    extensively discussing input from Law Enforcement.

 9.

    A Consumer Trust Chapter (following the order of the AOC, LE then
    CT), and include the full text of Lynn and Sharon's writeup right up
    including its Definitions.

Now the Gap Analysis Part of the Report

10.

    Here Peter's Gap Analysis could flow. It already shows us how, based
    on all the above, we still have gaps, problems, concerns, etc.

        a. I like using the additional facts, discussions, Constituency
        thoughts, written comments, etc., to share insights and
        information. Could this be a bit more streamlined?

        b. Perhaps subtitles, some already there, can help readers track
        our gap analysis with the Recommendations that we wrote, e.g.,
        proxy/privacy. Perhaps some Compliance and Policy Gap Analysis
        too (briefly to be inclusive).

Appendices:

Should my Methodology section hit the trash can?

Best and take care,
Kathy

-- 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/3c322f54/attachment.html