Sorry Steve good catch the chart was actually supposed to be as follows:
Sentiment analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis is a relatively widely used data mining toolset to determine subjective information from unstructured text.
I ran the comments through a commercially available sentiment analysis tool to try and get a feel for the structure and lean of the overall comment pool to see what we are dealing with at a high level view.
-James
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:24 PM
To: James Gannon; 'gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org'
Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Alternative Timeline
James I don't understand your "commercial sentiment " chart. Can you explain? Thanks
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 03:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Alternative Timeline
Hi All,
I’ve been thinking after our call yesterday and would like to suggest the following points to the group:
Due to the volume of substantive and possibly constructive comments received we need to reassess our timeline to completion of our work. We have hundreds of objective non-ironic comments to analyze and respond to and possible incorporate,
a quick commercial sentiment analysis on the non-petition based comments (i.e excluding name cheap and the save domain privacy comments for the purposes of the sentiment analysis) yields the following:
This work can be possibly be done using the sub team proposal as defined by Mary last night. But I feel that our current timeline, while appropriate at the time, will not allow us to have the sufficient bandwidth to give these comments
the time and attention that we need. Given that our work is now coming into the holiday period where many of us will need time to be with family and take vacation we need to accept the reality of the current proposed timeline. I would therefore suggest that
we assess the following proposal to refactor our timeline with the December 17th GNSO Council meeting (I believe this date is correct Mary can you confirm) as our target for submission to the GNSO Council as opposed to Dublin.
This would allow us to have 3 full review and incorporate cycles to work with, which could be done either as a whole or using subgroups, and the possibility of a F2F in Dublin
if required to address any outstanding issues of divergence within the WG. It will also give us time to work on the outstanding issues before the group that we have still not addressed to completion such as LEA requests and a number of sections that are still
under active discussion within the WG. I personally believe that this approach will allow us to be both efficient while recognizing that we have previously committed in public statements to deliver our report in ‘Late 2015’ such as the statement in the
Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Preliminary Issue Report which states:
“The PPSAI Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment in May 2015 and currently expects to publish its Final Report in late-2015”
We can be clear to both our communities and also to the greater public at large that we are reassessing our timeline in order to sufficiently respond to the volume of comments and to recognize the important of the work that we now have
ahead of us to ensure that these comments are incorporated where possible.
I think that this is a fair timeline for everyone involved and I hope that the group and the chairs will consider it to be presented in good faith to attempt to give everyone involved time to come to consensus on this most important set
of issues.
James Gannon
Director
Cyber Invasion Ltd
Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland
Office: +353 (1)663-8787
Cell: +353 (86)175-3581