[council] Revised Whois Study Summary

[Gomes, Chuck]

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 at psg.com] 
> 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.
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Whois Studies Priorities and Feasibilities from RYC on GNSO Cum Form 11 Dec 08.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 20480 bytes
Desc: Whois Studies Priorities and Feasibilities from RYC on GNSO Cum Form 11 Dec 08.xls
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20081211/63bf5337/WhoisStudiesPrioritiesandFeasibilitiesfromRYConGNSOCumForm11Dec08.xls>