Hi, I have similar doubts as Seun is expressing. best Olga 2017-07-24 16:32 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello,
I was trying to respond to the survey but got stuck on question 3. The instruction says 1 is most preferred and 2 least preferred.
My question then is, what is 3 to 7 for? Secondly are we supposed to rate each of the 7 options or just 2 out of the 7 options?
Regards PS: Using my handheld device (attached) Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Jul 24, 2017 9:31 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Reminder – please participate in the survey by Wednesday 26 July at 18.00 UTC: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCWGAPObjectives. To date only 2 members and 2 participants have completed the survey.
Thanks,
Marika
*From: *<ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 12:49 *To: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please participate - Survey on fund allocation objectives
Dear All,
Thank you very much for all the input received. Based on the input and some further review of the approach, please find hereby the link to the updated survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r /CCWGAPObjectives[surveymonkey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_...>. Note that the order of questions has been changed, by first asking you to prioritize the objectives identified to date. Furthermore, we realized that under each objective it would probably be possible to identify projects that would fall within or without the mission, as such, it was decided to focus the survey on this second level, projects that are deemed to be consistent with ICANN’s mission for each objective so that the CCWG will be able to start focusing in on the specifics. Obviously, this is not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ kind of exercise, or majority decides and as such any agreed outcomes will need to be further tested with the broader community as well as the ICANN Board but the hope is that this will provide the CCWG with a solid starting point for further deliberations on this specific issue. Note that as part of the review of the results, staff will also aim to pull in those example projects that were suggested in response to the earlier survey (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-NTHS95MP/[surveymonk ey.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_re...>).
Please respond to the survey * by Wednesday 26 July at 18.00 UTC at the latest*. The results of the survey will be shared in advance of the next meeting.
Thanks,
Marika
*Marika Konings*
*Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@icann.org> *
*Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
*Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses[learn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. *
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds