RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> 
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>