Hello George, Thank you very much for the very helpful comments/suggestions! We will incorporate them, as well as further comments/suggestions from other Sub Team members, in the summary table and send a clean and a redline version by COB today. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, Ariel On 1/31/19, 11:41 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote: After a quick review (I really only looked at my own input, so don't know if input from others was captured in the summary): Preamble: add data sources: Registrar - Q4h, cells B5-7, C5-7, E8, F8 Registry & Registrar -Q16 &Q4g, D26-34 [in my input for preamble, I had linked to the Q5a input, which contained those references, see page 3 of https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen... ] Q1: add mention the IDN issues for Q1(a) Q3: "The Sub Team has mixed views on whether the AG survey results assist in answering this question. " --- that could probably be added to preface every single section, of both sub team summary documents! Perhaps remove it, lest it implies only Q3 had this "debate" (e.g. I was submitting input on anything that touched upon a question, regardless of all the statistical deficiencies of the survey, for which I put explicit disclaimers in all of my responses). Also, typo of "Registriars" in the Data section. Q4. link to "Details" is incorrect (it's linking to Q5a, not Q4). Correct link is: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_open-3... Q5(b): as I noted in the document, there's huge overlap with Q5(a), as it's a "should" question "in light of the evidence" in 5(a), so I think the Data Sources should be supplemented to include all of the ones in Q5(a) Q6: typo in Summary ("SDPR" should be "SDRP") Q9: see point above in Q3 re: "The Sub Team has mixed views on whether the AG survey results assist in answering this question." language. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:55 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote: > > Dear Sunrise Sub Team Members, > > > > On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sharing the draft summary table that includes the Sub Team’s deliberation on the Analysis Group survey results. Please find the document attached. > > > > For each of the Sunrise charter question, staff have included in the second column of the table: > > 1) a draft summary of whether/how the AG survey data answers the charter question and its sub question(s); > > 2) tab/cell reference to survey data in the analysis tool spreadsheet (staff consolidated these references from the Google Doc); > > 3) link to the Google Doc for details; and > > 4) wiki page link(s) to Sub Team meeting(s) when this charter question was discussed. > > > > Please be so kind to review the draft summary table and if you find any inaccuracy/mischaracterization of the outcome of the discussion, please provide suggested revision via the mailing list by COB Thursday, 31 January. The goal is to share the summary table with the full WG by the end of this week to fulfill the reporting requirement. > > > > Thank you for your review and input. > > > > Best Regards, > > Mary, Julie, Ariel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list > Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise