ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] FW: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary

  • To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] FW: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary
  • From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:33:06 -0800
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AclbimF9TBu5GuiBSamSkhpf4sH3vgAEwgkgAMzRTLAEH/ewEQAG5NrA
  • Thread-topic: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary

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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>