All,
Attached are the initial priority scores for Whois studies from the Business
Constituency.
Thanks, Liz
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:14 AM
To: Liz Gasster
Cc: Chuck Gomes; Avri Doria
Subject: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary
Liz -- here are initial priority scores for the BC. Just let me know if
you have any questions.
--Steve
On 12/15/08 12:57 PM, "Liz Gasster" <Liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The current matrix of WHOIS Constituency views has been uploaded to
> the WHOIS discussion area of the GNSO Council workspace (including
> numeric levels for the RyC constituency). You may find this at:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion
>
> Constituency representatives are urged to update the information
> currently posted using a numeric weighting scale as agreed on the last call:
>
> Top = 5
> Medium high = 4
> Medium = 3
> Medium low = 2
> Low = 1
> No study = 0
>
> Our next call is this Wednesday 17 December and call-in details will
> be provided shortly. If you have any difficulty updating the wiki or
> if you would prefer that we update, just send your information to me
> and I will take care of it.
>
> Thanks, Liz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:41 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven Metalitz; Eulgen, Lee J.;
> Liz Gasster
> Subject: RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
>
> The attached file contains the RyC numberical priorties and
> feasibility entries. I used 0 to 5, where a 0 is used for a study
> that the RyC thought should not be pursued. In cases of combined
> studies where the RyC had assigned different priorities to studies in
> the combined group, I entered an approximate average (e.g., 4.5). I
> also added the following to the
> spreadsheet: 1) a new row to cover the study in Area 6 titled Met b;
> 2) a new column to identify the type of study (i.e., formal study,
> fact gathtering & analysis, or fact gathering only).
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:16 AM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck
>> Cc: Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven Metalitz; Eulgen, Lee J.;
>> Liz Gasster
>> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
Attachment:
BC Whois Studies Priorities and Feasibilities 18 Dec 08.xls
Description: BC Whois Studies Priorities and Feasibilities 18 Dec 08.xls