Bill, I don’t see how the methods this panel have developed and signed-off on (some of them over a year ago) misalign with our goal. What exactly are you suggesting this panel to do? -Dennis From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:36 PM To: Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Work Product Quality Dear colleagues, I want to strongly disagree with the thesis put forward at this morning's meeting that the quality of our work product depends on our following some very small number of discrete methodologies for identifying variants. It does not. A methodology, any methodology, is merely a tool. Its purpose is to help us get to our goal -- identifying variants. If we use multiple methodologies, each of which allows us to identify some (quite possibly overlapping) subset of the universe of variants, that's OK. If we identify a few additional cases that we believe to be variants, while going outside those methodologies, that's OK too. It is desirable to have methodologies which identify large subsets, but only because that expedites our work. The methodologies are a means to an end, not the end in themselves. The quality of our work product is based on how successfully we identify the members of the underlying universe of variants. How we get there is really irrelevant to the quality of what we produce. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>