[Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article

[Kathy Kleiman]

I agree that we have to correct things that leave readers with a 
misimpression (whether or not it's our fault or intent).

There are other calls for our report to be more specific (see e.g., 
Steve Crocker's comments to our draft report).  I think this may be 
refrain we hear in Costa Rica....

Best,
Kathy

:
> The language in our report is correct.  The article, however, leaves 
> the reader with the impression that 170 million domain names have 
> WHOIS information that makes them uncontactable.
>
> J.
>
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article
>     From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com
>     <mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>>
>     Date: Fri, February 17, 2012 11:49 am
>     To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com
>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>     Cc: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu
>     <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>, "<rt4-whois at icann.org
>     <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>"
>     <rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
>
>     James,
>
>     I'm struggling to understand how our report is false. On Page 80 &
>     81 we write:
>
>     As discussed in Chapter 6, in January 2009/10, ICANN published a
>     study conducted by the National Opinion Research Council of the
>     University of Chicago (NORC) that had been commissioned in 2009 by
>     ICANN to obtain a baseline measurement of what proportion of WHOIS
>     records are accurate. Examining an internationally representative
>     sample of 1419 records, the Study found that, based on a strict
>     application of the criteria, only 23% of records were fully
>     accurate, though roughly twice that number met a slightly relaxed
>     version of the criteria. The study also found that 21.6% of data
>     was not sufficient for the registrant to be located, with either
>     missing or deliberately false information.
>
>     Our report makes a factual reference to an ICANN-sponsored study.
>     Based on the criteria established, the study found "only 23% were
>     fully accurate". Doing the math results in Carr's assertion.
>
>     Of course there are other ways to interpret the data, for example;
>     "Assuming 220 million domains names, the study suggests that
>     nearly 48 million registrations lack sufficient information in
>     their WHOIS records to locate the registrant".
>
>     There are risks associated with extrapolating from a study
>     employing a sample of a set. That is well known but studies like
>     the NORC one are commonly employed to discern the scale of
>     problems. The NORC study when combined with anecdotal evidence
>     from Law Enforcement and others suggests that inaccuracy is a
>     significant problem. I am unaware of evidence to the contrary.
>
>     I also struggle with a requirement that our report, or we as a
>     group need to dispel individual statements or perceptions of
>     others. If we adopt that as an operating principle, I submit that
>     we will spend considerable time in an unproductive activity.
>
>     Bill
>
>
>     On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:31 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>
>     "Out of a current total of 220 million domain names only 23% are
>     fully accurate. 50 million are OK. 170 million are not. "
>
>     Our final report needs to do a better job of dispelling this
>     falsehood.
>
>     J.
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: [Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article
>     From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu
>     <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>><mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
>     Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 5:40 am
>     To: rt4-whois at icann.org
>     <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
>     http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-carr/whois-reading-the-whois-r_b_1272733.html
>
>     --
>
>
>     [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]
>
>
>
>     76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
>     t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 . m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
>     emily at emilytaylor.eu
>     <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>
>     www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk><http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>
>     <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/%3E>;
>
>     Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in
>     England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
>     ________________________________
>     _______________________________________________
>     Rt4-whois mailing list
>     Rt4-whois at icann.org
>     <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>     _______________________________________________
>     Rt4-whois mailing list
>     Rt4-whois at icann.org
>     <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120217/273d9992/attachment.html