possible alternative "groups"
As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases. I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions. Stephanie Perrin
Stephanie, Thank you so much for your efforts in producing this document. I strongly support your proposed framework for categorising the possible requirements. To your comment on page 10, I think there would be value in an index being produced that sorted the requirements by keyword as well. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 3:50 AM, Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca wrote: As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases. I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions. Stephanie Perrin Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest
Hi I definitely like the idea of bundling some of these up into high level groups, I think it will facilitate discussion much better. We can probably even work on tightening the groups up even further in some areas, but in concept I like it and do feel it will make the work easier. -James From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Date: Monday 25 July 2016 at 09:54 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible alternative "groups"
Dear Stephanie Greetings and Thanks for your hard work. At this occasion may I thank all in this group, staff or participants, who have put in so much effort so far. After reading Stephanies document and thinking it over, I think this is a valuable approach which I like to support. One of the important points is that even the "non-experts", will have to be able to work with it and understand what is going on. There might be some refinements possible that even more streamline the approach and categories. I urge my fellow group members to have a good look at what Stephanie has produced and if possible support its adoption and maybe suggest some further refinements. Yours Klaus On 7/24/2016 10:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases.
I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Stephanie Perrin
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
+1 Stephanie has produced a framework of categories that is comprehensive and based on the full array of "possible requirements" which have come before this WG. Her framework of categories draws heavily on her many years of experience working and drafting in the legal and legislative areas within the scope of this Working Group. I am very glad she answered Chuck's call for alternatives that build upon the work done by Susan and Lisa. I second what Klaus writes below: "I urge my fellow group members to have a good look at what Stephanie has produced and if possible support its adoption and maybe suggest some further refinements." Best, Kathy On 7/25/2016 10:16 AM, Klaus Stoll wrote:
Dear Stephanie
Greetings and Thanks for your hard work. At this occasion may I thank all in this group, staff or participants, who have put in so much effort so far.
After reading Stephanies document and thinking it over, I think this is a valuable approach which I like to support. One of the important points is that even the "non-experts", will have to be able to work with it and understand what is going on. There might be some refinements possible that even more streamline the approach and categories.
I urge my fellow group members to have a good look at what Stephanie has produced and if possible support its adoption and maybe suggest some further refinements.
Yours
Klaus
On 7/24/2016 10:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases.
I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Stephanie Perrin
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Hi Stephanie, Thanks for taking a deeper look at the keyword groups I chose when reviewing all the possible requirements. I think the analysis you are working on is the natural next step in looking at the possible requirements. The keyword exercise was simply to make it easier to group similar PR and make sure we didn’t leave anything out and that appears to be where you are going. I do wonder why you left out keyword groups A, T, Y, Ab and Aw? Thanks again for taking the next step. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:50 PM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible alternative "groups" As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases. I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions. Stephanie Perrin
Gosh I thought I had only left out one....sorry, will check back and reply in time for tomorrow. Perhaps one of my versions did not save properly. Will fix prior to the meeting... cheers Stephanie On 2016-07-25 19:02, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
Thanks for taking a deeper look at the keyword groups I chose when reviewing all the possible requirements. I think the analysis you are working on is the natural next step in looking at the possible requirements. The keyword exercise was simply to make it easier to group similar PR and make sure we didn’t leave anything out and that appears to be where you are going. I do wonder why you left out keyword groups A, T, Y, Ab and Aw?
Thanks again for taking the next step. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:50 PM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible alternative "groups"
As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases.
I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Stephanie Perrin
Here is a new version, my apologies for missing a couple. Here are the changes: A was filed under A Goals T under AB differentiated access Y Internalization: as indicated, I don't understand what this means so could not place it. Ab under EC Jurisdiction issues (typo, it was showing Aa there, Aa was actually under DB accuracy) Aw I could not find an Aw on the key for the spreadsheet that was discussed last week. What category is Aw? I hope that clears up the typos and omissions. cheers Stephanie On 2016-07-25 23:16, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
Gosh I thought I had only left out one....sorry, will check back and reply in time for tomorrow. Perhaps one of my versions did not save properly. Will fix prior to the meeting...
cheers Stephanie
On 2016-07-25 19:02, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
Thanks for taking a deeper look at the keyword groups I chose when reviewing all the possible requirements. I think the analysis you are working on is the natural next step in looking at the possible requirements. The keyword exercise was simply to make it easier to group similar PR and make sure we didn’t leave anything out and that appears to be where you are going. I do wonder why you left out keyword groups A, T, Y, Ab and Aw?
Thanks again for taking the next step. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:50 PM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible alternative "groups"
As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases.
I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Stephanie Perrin
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Stephanie has produced some really good work here. I fully endorse this framework and urge its adoption. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and Susan have already done on it. Chuck asked me if I could come up with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with the categories, which everyone might select differently. Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords. I have put almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if people really want to search by word phrases.
I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first glance. It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful. My rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter deserves a bit more reflection. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Stephanie Perrin
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
participants (7)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
Carlton Samuels -
James Gannon -
Kathy Kleiman -
Klaus Stoll -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi