At 15/09/2009 11:37 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended fixes, I don't think the new studies will help.
That's fine, but we have to make that case clear in our position.
We need to put forward -- with proof and compelling logic -- that
a) the status quo is dangerous
b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the solution
c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist.
- Evan
Just remember that you will be preaching to a crowd of people, some of whom have invested MANY YEARS in this debate, far more than you or I, and are very reluctant to embark on another go without being armed with some data that will stop those blocking progress from doing it again. The views being sited here are not unique. The NCUC and I think the Registrars refused to prioritize the whois studies on the theory that it is all just a waste of time. But the GAC was pretty insistent, and ultimately they won this round. Alan