Hello All, 

I have quickly reviewed the chapter edits and insertion of Steve Crocker's comments.   The only comments I have relate to page 26 

In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study.  Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. 

No Failure Met all three criteria fully – deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview

Full failure – Failed on all criteria – undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview

I have suggested a revision below in yellow. 

 Data accuracy – In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the “NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10”).  The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records met the study's criteria for No Failure and over 20% were categorized as Full Failure.  The[low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself.  The organisation’s priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time.  It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy.