<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary
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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|