Sarah,

Thanks for your note.  See comments inline below to expand and refine the point.

Steve


On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:35 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote:

Good morning,

Upon re-read it seems I misunderstood Steve's point in the email below.

I'm now understanding Steve to suggest that requestor satisfaction will be a factor in the input we give to the Board for decision about whether to move forward with the SSAD.

Yes, requestor satisfaction should be a key factor for the board to consider.

I would expect they will be interested and perhaps require input from multiple sources, not just us.  We don't have the time and resources to gather requestor satisfaction, needs, etc.  We're all smart, well intentioned, and thoughtful, and we're devoting quality time, so we may indeed have some useful things to say, but we're not in a position to be the ultimate arbiters of what the requestors need or the extent of their satisfaction.

The only organized channels for the requestors to express themselves are the survey form and a handful of venues controlled by staff or the contracted parties.  This is why some of us organized the requestor session in San Juan.  There should be additional engagement with existing and potential requestors.  See below.

Setting aside the question of whether this is one of the data points the Board expects, I'm not sure how the registrar could possibly track requestor satisfaction when documenting outcomes.

Complete agreement.  The good news is that it is not up to the registrars to make the final judgment on requestor satisfaction. 

The outcome statistics track how the request was concluded: the data was disclosed, partially disclosed, denied, or already public.

Wouldn't requestor satisfaction be captured in the survey that requestors should receive in each case closure notification?

Well, the survey responses will capture some data.  That said, some basic questions come quickly to mind.
  1. What sort of bias is built into the survey questions?
  2. What isn't being asked for?  How much room is there for anecdotal responses?
  3. Of the people who use the RDRS, how many respond via the survey?  What do the requestors who do not respond to the survey think?
  4. How do we reach the people who are not using the RDRS but nonetheless are potential requestors?
Finally, I surely hope the board's choices are broader than whether or not to proceed with SSAD in the form it was proposed.

Thanks,

Steve

sender