[Rt4-whois] FINAL edit of the draft report - to be published

[Emily Taylor]

Dear Alice, dear All

On our last call, you empowered me and Kathy to have a final, final edit,
once the whole report was put together.  I have spent much of today working
through the whole report, and attach a mark up showing some minor changes
that I recommend making.

As predicted, the new text combined with the old has created a few
anomalies.  In addition, there are one or two places where I have made
changes (eg where public comment suggested we should make clear that we're
not advocating going behind PDPs or existing processes - we all agreed to
this, but forgot to put it in).  I have listed them all out below for
maximum transparency and so that you can see what I've done at a glance.
 They are also marked up in the  attached version.  My approach through out
has been minimalist, and to move existing text rather than amend it.
 Sometimes, I've had to create new words, but have stuck to areas where I
know we all agree, rather than plunging into controversial areas.

Alice has also done things like make sure "WHOIS" is consistently
capitalised throughout.  She will also go through one more time and clear
up anomalies in US and UK spelling.

*The way forward: I am asking Alice to accept all these changes now,
produce a content page, and have the report published.*
*
*
*IF YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS (PARTICULARLY ON LATEST CHANGES) PLEASE LET
ALICE AND ME KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.*
*
*
*
*
Kind regards


Emily

*---------------*




So, here is a run down of the changes that I have made:

*Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations*

Page 5 - the new language on studies was there along with the original
wording.  We agreed to keep the original wording, and sort of liked the new
language.  Reading the Exec summary through again, I find they duplicated
and so went back to the original wording.

Page 5 - removed the title "Conclusions" which led into original text.
 This had been removed, then reinstated, and again reading it through the
whole Exec Summary came across as a lot of conclusions, followed by
findings etc.  So, removing the title, includes much of the text as
continuing the "Debate" point, where it originally was.  I also moved the
paragraph about "Consumer Trust" to the Findings section before
Recommendations 3 where it works very well, and introduces the Consumer
study into our findings (it wasn't there before, which I think was an
omission).

Page 5 - moved the original wording describing the Review Team's diversity
etc to the final paragraph of "Work of this Review Team" on the following
page.

Page 7 - Removed the word "honest" (a hangover from my original, bad
tempered draft, subsequently toned down and this was missed), and changed
"and encourage the " to "encouraging" to fit with the language of the rest
of the sentence in the findings to Strategic Priority (rec 1).  I also put
in a footnote describing the NORC study where first mentioned.  It fits
better to go into a full definition in the text on Data Accuracy findings
(as is).

Page 7 - it's marked as me, but I picked up and included text edits
proposed by Peter on the Exec Summary (eg "the" included in 5th bullet
point on page 7)

Page 8 - Peter's text included in second paragraph of Findings to Rec 3,
and paragraph moved from original exec summary on consumer study, with
first sentence tweaked to keep the flow.

Page 10 - Susan's wording and footnote explaining definitions included in
the findings on Data Accuracy (NORC study terms).

Page 11 - A section starting "Anecdotal evidence suggests..." is added into
the para on WDRP to fit with the Findings and Recommendations at the end of
the report (which included this text inserted from the original "Findings")

Page 12 - Added "in accordance with ICANN's existing processes" in the bit
about WDRP to reflect feedback from public comment, which suggested that it
reads like we're trying to bypass PDP.

Page 15 - the text for findings is new.  It was agreed on the list a couple
of days ago.

Page 16-17 - the order of the final two recommendations has been reversed
as agreed, and consequential changes made.

*Main report*
*
*
Page 18 - in response to feedback that said it looked as if I was claiming
to be Chair of the ccNSO, I have created a table for the membership of the
Review Team, rather than the previous bullet point format.

Page 36 - new Chapter 4 - I have changed the reference to Findings and
Recommendations (which were originally included in the chapter itself).

Page 37 - we need to add in the references to Appendix numbers when they
are published, and also double-check that page numbers for the report
itself are accurate.

Page 37 - date of letter to compliance team is added.

Page 41 - two "also"s removed.  Appendix numbers need adding.

Page 42 - emphasis added to quotation about budget, and "emphasis added" is
included in text.

Page 42 - dates changed, and additional text brings this passage up to
date.  Footnote added "considered narrowly" in the text.

*Gap Analysis*
*
*
We had not really revisited this in the light of our updated findings and
recommendations.  Mostly, it's still very good, but there were a couple of
anomalies.

Page 75 - removed "Conclusions" as these are now incorporated into Findings
with the recommendations.  Full and Substantial Failure are included in
keeping with our findings and recommendations on data accuracy

Page 76 - included short paragraph on compliance budget/staffing which lays
the foundations for the findings.

Page 78 - this passage on The Proxy Registration System reflected the state
of play on publication of our draft report - ie that we were making
separate recommendations for privacy and proxy providers, and two
alternatives for "common interface".  The situation has now changed.  I
have dealt with this by removing a few paragraphs that talk about us not
reaching consensus, and being sceptical about whether our recommended
"voluntary best practices for proxies" would work.  Removed the reference
to alternatives completely on "Common Interface". and added a few words to
try and pull back the sense on how all this relies on a functioning
compliance team to work out.

Finally, I went through the Findings and Recommendations as set out in the
Exec Summary and at the end of the report. They should be identical, and as
noted above I made a few changes for consistency (where one had changed but
not the other).






-- 




*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120507/28fd84ca/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WHOIS - Final report V6.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 429263 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120507/28fd84ca/WHOIS-FinalreportV6.docx