Milton, I agree with most of what you say except that the log "privileges" early comments - it simply lists comments when they come in. Although most comments will come in on the last few days we will probably get a large volume of these given the interest in the topic. As such we will certainly need some sort of classification/organization of these beyond the raw list - this is just an initial stab at this which I will keep doing - just thought it would be useful for some on this list. Cheers. B. On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

Appreciate the attempt but I am not sure this is a good idea. If this public comment period is like every one I have ever seen before, 90% of the comments will come on the day of the deadline or perhaps a day before. The running log therefore kind of privileges early comments as they trickle in. Then we will be hit with a deluge at the end anyway. Might be better to look at all comments after they all come in.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:35 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

All,

This will be part of a daily log of public comments to assist us on in keeping track of the various postings.

Comments on how to improve this welcome.

B.,

For December 2nd we have the following:

*Date*

*From*

*Summary*

*20141202*

*Page Howe*

*Current system with NTIA is doing a good job and wants it maintained.*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Garbled paste into body of comment*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Refers to a US supreme court case about .com (?) involving a number of parties including ICANN and suggesting that the transition work not proceed until this is resolved.*

A cumulative of these summaries is provided as an Excel file - attached.

B.

I agree with everybody. It's definitely helpful. At the same time, we should consciously avoid privileging early comments in any fashion. If these first submissions are any indication, that might not be too difficult. We should also avoid the opposite. I seem to recall discussions in my college psych courses of two cognitive biases: the "primacy effect" and the "recency effect." While this is not really the same thing, it may be a useful analogy. Milton cautions us against something analogous to the "primacy effect," if I recall correctly. We should also caution ourselves against something like the "recency effect." In other words, we should not let the order in which comments come in influence our attention to them. Greg On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

As you would probably guess my previous comment Milton, I disagree. It is not perfect but for me I find it helpful. Anyone who doesn’t find it helpful can ignore it.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:47 AM *To:* Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

Appreciate the attempt but I am not sure this is a good idea. If this public comment period is like every one I have ever seen before, 90% of the comments will come on the day of the deadline or perhaps a day before. The running log therefore kind of privileges early comments as they trickle in. Then we will be hit with a deluge at the end anyway. Might be better to look at all comments after they all come in.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:35 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

All,

This will be part of a daily log of public comments to assist us on in keeping track of the various postings.

Comments on how to improve this welcome.

B.,

For December 2nd we have the following:

*Date*

*From*

*Summary*

*20141202*

*Page Howe*

*Current system with NTIA is doing a good job and wants it maintained.*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Garbled paste into body of comment*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Refers to a US supreme court case about .com (?) involving a number of parties including ICANN and suggesting that the transition work not proceed until this is resolved.*

A cumulative of these summaries is provided as an Excel file - attached.

B.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

And I agree with Greg agreeing with everybody. I’m in a really agreeable mood today ;-) Seriously, my point was exactly that we need to avoid either sequence or recency bias. When all the comments are in they should be processed and analyzed as a whole, each comment treated equally. I am sorry that Bernard doesn’t understand how sequence might privilege certain comments and I won’t bore with the explanation. If others find the service useful I have no strong objection to them reading it. However, I would ask the chairs to enforce a ban, punishable by banishment to MySpace ;-), on anyone on this list saying, BEFORE the deadline, “oh the public comments are saying X so we have to do Y or Z” or any other form of premature analysis or conclusion-drawing from an incomplete set of comments. --MM From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Milton L Mueller; Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd I agree with everybody. It's definitely helpful. At the same time, we should consciously avoid privileging early comments in any fashion. If these first submissions are any indication, that might not be too difficult. We should also avoid the opposite. I seem to recall discussions in my college psych courses of two cognitive biases: the "primacy effect" and the "recency effect." While this is not really the same thing, it may be a useful analogy. Milton cautions us against something analogous to the "primacy effect," if I recall correctly. We should also caution ourselves against something like the "recency effect." In other words, we should not let the order in which comments come in influence our attention to them. Greg On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: As you would probably guess my previous comment Milton, I disagree. It is not perfect but for me I find it helpful. Anyone who doesn’t find it helpful can ignore it. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:47 AM To: Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd Appreciate the attempt but I am not sure this is a good idea. If this public comment period is like every one I have ever seen before, 90% of the comments will come on the day of the deadline or perhaps a day before. The running log therefore kind of privileges early comments as they trickle in. Then we will be hit with a deluge at the end anyway. Might be better to look at all comments after they all come in. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:35 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd All, This will be part of a daily log of public comments to assist us on in keeping track of the various postings. Comments on how to improve this welcome. B., For December 2nd we have the following: Date From Summary 20141202 Page Howe Current system with NTIA is doing a good job and wants it maintained. 20141202 Graham Schreiber Garbled paste into body of comment 20141202 Graham Schreiber Refers to a US supreme court case about .com (?) involving a number of parties including ICANN and suggesting that the transition work not proceed until this is resolved. A cumulative of these summaries is provided as an Excel file - attached. B. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I think that using early comments as a predictor or indicator of later comments is actually a form of "privileging" those comments. There is no reason why early comments necessarily indicate what is to come. If we were to go on results to date, I would predict we will get crackpots with years-old axes to grind and domainers who think there should be no IANA transition. I am fairly confident that is a terrible prediction. If we do look at comments as they come in, we should do so on an FWIW basis (i.e., "for what it's worth") and not ascribe any special powers of prediction to these comments. I intend to do so, but only to feel less deluged. Greg On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:

Milton:

I am with Chuck. You are not obligated to read it. Also, I agree with you that we should wait until all comments are in before making any analysis/judgement. The good that I see in reading the comments as they come in is that it can give you an indication of what is to come. Obviously we had to see them all.

-ed

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

And I agree with Greg agreeing with everybody. I’m in a really agreeable mood today ;-)

Seriously, my point was exactly that we need to avoid either sequence or recency bias. When all the comments are in they should be processed and analyzed as a whole, each comment treated equally. I am sorry that Bernard doesn’t understand how sequence might privilege certain comments and I won’t bore with the explanation.

If others find the service useful I have no strong objection to them reading it. However, I would ask the chairs to enforce a ban, punishable by banishment to MySpace ;-), on anyone on this list saying, BEFORE the deadline, “oh the public comments are saying X so we have to do Y or Z” or any other form of premature analysis or conclusion-drawing from an incomplete set of comments.

--MM

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:57 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

I agree with everybody. It's definitely helpful. At the same time, we should consciously avoid privileging early comments in any fashion. If these first submissions are any indication, that might not be too difficult.

We should also avoid the opposite. I seem to recall discussions in my college psych courses of two cognitive biases: the "primacy effect" and the "recency effect." While this is not really the same thing, it may be a useful analogy. Milton cautions us against something analogous to the "primacy effect," if I recall correctly. We should also caution ourselves against something like the "recency effect." In other words, we should not let the order in which comments come in influence our attention to them.

Greg

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

As you would probably guess my previous comment Milton, I disagree. It is not perfect but for me I find it helpful. Anyone who doesn’t find it helpful can ignore it.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:47 AM *To:* Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

Appreciate the attempt but I am not sure this is a good idea. If this public comment period is like every one I have ever seen before, 90% of the comments will come on the day of the deadline or perhaps a day before. The running log therefore kind of privileges early comments as they trickle in. Then we will be hit with a deluge at the end anyway. Might be better to look at all comments after they all come in.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:35 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

All,

This will be part of a daily log of public comments to assist us on in keeping track of the various postings.

Comments on how to improve this welcome.

B.,

For December 2nd we have the following:

*Date*

*From*

*Summary*

*20141202*

*Page Howe*

*Current system with NTIA is doing a good job and wants it maintained.*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Garbled paste into body of comment*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Refers to a US supreme court case about .com (?) involving a number of parties including ICANN and suggesting that the transition work not proceed until this is resolved.*

A cumulative of these summaries is provided as an Excel file - attached.

B.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

Seun, I think you misunderstand. No one is resisting the effort to capture all comments. Indeed, this is a core task that staff undertakes in any public comment period. So, your concerns are unfounded. The objection was made only to releasing those "captured" comments in a "daily log" format, out of concern we would give inappropriate weight to these early comments versus comments that come later in the process. Also, I think you are jumping to conclusions about what this conversation is an "indication" of -- conclusions that conveniently fit with your views. I think this conclusion is unfounded as well. Thinking that this discussion about whether it's a good idea to review early comments somehow reveals anyone's view of the draft proposal is meritless. Greg On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't understand the opposition here. Someone has volunteered to make an attempt to capture all comments and it seem we are resisting such effort. I don't want to believe that we are not interested in capturing every contribution fairly.

This continuously brings me to worry about what we have put up for comments... It's seem to be an indication that deep inside us we know it's not close being a solution.

I am entirely open to discussing comments even as they come in.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Dec 2014 21:24, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

And I agree with Greg agreeing with everybody. I’m in a really agreeable mood today ;-)

Seriously, my point was exactly that we need to avoid either sequence or recency bias. When all the comments are in they should be processed and analyzed as a whole, each comment treated equally. I am sorry that Bernard doesn’t understand how sequence might privilege certain comments and I won’t bore with the explanation.

If others find the service useful I have no strong objection to them reading it. However, I would ask the chairs to enforce a ban, punishable by banishment to MySpace ;-), on anyone on this list saying, BEFORE the deadline, “oh the public comments are saying X so we have to do Y or Z” or any other form of premature analysis or conclusion-drawing from an incomplete set of comments.

--MM

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:57 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

I agree with everybody. It's definitely helpful. At the same time, we should consciously avoid privileging early comments in any fashion. If these first submissions are any indication, that might not be too difficult.

We should also avoid the opposite. I seem to recall discussions in my college psych courses of two cognitive biases: the "primacy effect" and the "recency effect." While this is not really the same thing, it may be a useful analogy. Milton cautions us against something analogous to the "primacy effect," if I recall correctly. We should also caution ourselves against something like the "recency effect." In other words, we should not let the order in which comments come in influence our attention to them.

Greg

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

As you would probably guess my previous comment Milton, I disagree. It is not perfect but for me I find it helpful. Anyone who doesn’t find it helpful can ignore it.

Chuck

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:47 AM *To:* Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

Appreciate the attempt but I am not sure this is a good idea. If this public comment period is like every one I have ever seen before, 90% of the comments will come on the day of the deadline or perhaps a day before. The running log therefore kind of privileges early comments as they trickle in. Then we will be hit with a deluge at the end anyway. Might be better to look at all comments after they all come in.

*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:35 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

All,

This will be part of a daily log of public comments to assist us on in keeping track of the various postings.

Comments on how to improve this welcome.

B.,

For December 2nd we have the following:

*Date*

*From*

*Summary*

*20141202*

*Page Howe*

*Current system with NTIA is doing a good job and wants it maintained.*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Garbled paste into body of comment*

*20141202*

* Graham Schreiber*

*Refers to a US supreme court case about .com (?) involving a number of parties including ICANN and suggesting that the transition work not proceed until this is resolved.*

A cumulative of these summaries is provided as an Excel file - attached.

B.

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

We probably do have better things to discuss.... :-) On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Hello all,

On 03/12/2014 22:10, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

The objection was made only to releasing those "captured" comments in a "daily log" format, out of concern we would give inappropriate weight to these early comments versus comments that come later in the process.

I really do not know why we are fussing about this. Seriously? I find Bernard Turcotte's daily summary helpful and I will give weight to early or late comments as I wish. As for the group itself giving equal weight to all comments, this is a given. That's how all public comments are analysed in ICANN. Thanks Bernard!

Regards,

Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship