-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article
From: "Smith, Bill" <
bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>
Date: Fri, February 17, 2012 11:49 am
To: "James M. Bladel" <
jbladel@godaddy.com>
Cc: Emily Taylor <
emily@emilytaylor.eu>,
"<
rt4-whois@icann.org>"
<
rt4-whois@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@emilytaylor.eu><
mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>>
Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 5:40 am
To:
rt4-whois@icann.org<
mailto:rt4-whois@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@emilytaylor.eu<
mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>
www.etlaw.co.uk<
http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>;
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in
England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@icann.org<
mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@icann.org<
mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
