RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
I'm flexible.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:25 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven
> Metalitz; Eulgen,Lee J.; Liz Gasster; Avri Doria
> Subject: RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
>
> I also agree with Avri's suggested approach.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 6:41 am
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve DelBianco
> <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steven Metalitz <met@xxxxxxx>,
> "Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Liz Gasster
> <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi,
>
> This strikes me as an eminently sensible approach that would
> capture the range of viewpoints across constituencies better
> than the existing labels and also facilitate more precise
> tabulation of results.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Bill
>
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> hi Chuck,
>
>
> I was working on how I was going to work with the other NCAs
> to figure out our collective viewpoint and went back to your
> original document where instead of using the words
> Top/Med/Low you used values from 5-[1,0] (not sure you allowed for 0).
>
>
> In terms of figuring out where the top priorities really are
> on a council wide basis, i think it would be good to go back
> to those values and then we could ado simple stats on them to
> see which really were the top priority items on a council
> wide basis. And by allowing a value of 0 for no-study we
> take into account the possible viewpoint of RC and NCUC and
> perhaps others on specific studies they feel are not worth doing.
>
>
> In terms of values it could be something like:
>
>
> Priority
>
>
> Top = 5
> Medium high = 4
> Medium = 3
> Medium low = 2
> Low = 1
> No study = 0
>
>
>
>
> and for Feasibility
>
>
> yes = 1
> maybe/don't know = 0
> no = -1
>
>
> I also recommend that, for now, we unify the table without
> separating it for top/med/low and fill in numeric values for
> all of the constituencies, NCA, ALAC, and GAC if they are
> interested (though we can assume they give top marks to the
> studies they recommended). This will allow us to sort on the
> stats to get a better picture.
>
>
> I have attached a sample excel file (haven't put in the
> equations yet) that would capture it. With a 'little' bit of
> work, for some value of 'little', it could be turned into a
> form that the constituencies could just fill in the values
> for. Alternatively, each constituency could submit its values.
>
>
> This is just a suggestion, but I cannot think of a non
> numerical way to
> make sure that all of the constituencies valuations are all taken into
> account. I.e. how do we turn a bunch of low, med and highs into an
> average without using numbers?
>
>
> a.
>
> <whois-studies-cummulative.xls>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:11, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>
> Please disregard the previous Whois Studies Summary document
> and replace
> it with this one. It is requested that the RC, ISCPC, NCUC, ALAC and
> NomCom reps fill in the two column of boxes in the table and send the
> file back saved with the same file name with the group initials added.
>
>
> Thanks, Chuck
> <Whois Studies Summary 10 Dec 08 v2.doc>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>