[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Consultation Statistical Analysis V2.0
avri at acm.org
Tue Jan 6 20:26:54 UTC 2015
numbers to stare at for a while.
Interesting bottom line:
> Conclusions - The only thing these 3 groups have in common is that the
> proposal is too complex, that IANA should not be shifted from ICANN at
> the beginning of the transition and that accountability needs to be in
> place prior to the transition.
On 06-Jan-15 14:27, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> All (at the request of the co-Chairs),
> Please find attached the next version (2.0) of the analysis (based on
> the previous spreadsheet which was presented on December 30th).
> All the data used is included as well as how it was classified etc.
> and the various tabs are aptly named.
> Tabulation of results has now been automated to avoid errors.
> There are no significant differences vs the results presented December
> * The analysis of all the responses together is essentially the same
> and still does not give a majority to Contract Co.(when using a
> 75% requirement)
> * The analysis by type of respondent is useful but the cross
> comparisons are not, at least in my opinion.
> * The analysis of ccTLDs vs the RySG proposal in interesting.
> * The analysis of In ICANN vs Not In ICANN is very interesting with
> a high degree of correlation on many points by those In ICANN.
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship