With
regard to ‘B. What promotes consumer trust?’, I would like to
discuss further the phrase ‘WHOIS data is provided accurately and with
consent’. I initially read this as a simple recognition of the need to
consider privacy issues. However, I now wonder whether this can be read as an
unambiguous statement of a specific requirement (i.e. the need for consent). If
so, I do not think we have reached a settled position on this issue yet.
I’m not advocating a view either way on this, and I think the discussion
forward will need to be detailed and nuanced, but I am concerned that the
existing text could be seen to close off these discussions. I have a similar
comment on question 5 in the survey, which refers to ‘legitimate options
available to hide the WHOIS data’. Again, I do not think the existing
situation is so clear cut, and I personally have not got a settled position on
this.
Sarmad è
Trust is a perceptual measure. Understanding of privacy and legitimacy
may vary from one person to another, depending on the culture they are coming
from. Thus, these questions can still gauge perceptions even with agreeing with
definitions which are not clearly settled. However, this is not to say that we
should work harder to define many of these terms as clearly as we can.
With
regard to the survey as a whole, I have some comments on the wording of
specific questions (particularly relating to clarity), but I wanted to raise a
broader issue. In particular, I note that the current proposed survey is
essentially closed and qualitative, and I wonder what exactly we are aiming to
achieve from it?
Sarmad è
We are perhaps wanting to break down different aspects of “Consumer
Trust” to better measure how the relevant stakeholders perceive the
contribution of the service in the context. The break down will also help
identify which specific areas of the cumulative “Consumer Trust”
need to be addressed. This is in the context of the our specific mandate: “review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent
to which WHOIS policy … promotes consumer trust”
Regards,
Sarmad
From:
rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf
Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2011 8:09 PM
To: rt4-whois@icann.org WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
Dear Review Team Members,
Please find attached a public comment draft announcement for your
review and consideration in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for
tomorrow.
Kindly note that this was drafted and approved by Kathy and Emily.
Many thanks in advance,
Very best regards
Alice
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended
recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material.
Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities
other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe
penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the
Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete
all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/01/11
12:34:00