I'm flexible. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:25 AM To: William Drake Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven Metalitz; Eulgen,Lee J.; Liz Gasster; Avri Doria Subject: RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
I also agree with Avri's suggested approach.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary From: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 6:41 am To: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com>, "Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen@ngelaw.com>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@icann.org>
Hi,
This strikes me as an eminently sensible approach that would capture the range of viewpoints across constituencies better than the existing labels and also facilitate more precise tabulation of results.
Best,
Bill
On Dec 11, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
hi Chuck,
I was working on how I was going to work with the other NCAs to figure out our collective viewpoint and went back to your original document where instead of using the words Top/Med/Low you used values from 5-[1,0] (not sure you allowed for 0).
In terms of figuring out where the top priorities really are on a council wide basis, i think it would be good to go back to those values and then we could ado simple stats on them to see which really were the top priority items on a council wide basis. And by allowing a value of 0 for no-study we take into account the possible viewpoint of RC and NCUC and perhaps others on specific studies they feel are not worth doing.
In terms of values it could be something like:
Priority
Top = 5 Medium high = 4 Medium = 3 Medium low = 2 Low = 1 No study = 0
and for Feasibility
yes = 1 maybe/don't know = 0 no = -1
I also recommend that, for now, we unify the table without separating it for top/med/low and fill in numeric values for all of the constituencies, NCA, ALAC, and GAC if they are interested (though we can assume they give top marks to the studies they recommended). This will allow us to sort on the stats to get a better picture.
I have attached a sample excel file (haven't put in the equations yet) that would capture it. With a 'little' bit of work, for some value of 'little', it could be turned into a form that the constituencies could just fill in the values for. Alternatively, each constituency could submit its values.
This is just a suggestion, but I cannot think of a non numerical way to make sure that all of the constituencies valuations are all taken into account. I.e. how do we turn a bunch of low, med and highs into an average without using numbers?
a.
<whois-studies-cummulative.xls>
On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:11, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Please disregard the previous Whois Studies Summary document and replace it with this one. It is requested that the RC, ISCPC, NCUC, ALAC and NomCom reps fill in the two column of boxes in the table and send the file back saved with the same file name with the group initials added.
Thanks, Chuck <Whois Studies Summary 10 Dec 08 v2.doc>
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************