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:
Whois Studies Priorities and Feasibilities from RYC on GNSO Cum Form 11 Dec 08.xls
|