RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

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.
>
>