[CWG-Stewardship] Support for PTI and PTI board composition in the public comments

[Gomes, Chuck]

We need to be careful about this statistic: "41 Responses is less than the (currently) 133 listed participants ".  A large percentage of the public comments were from groups all of which had multiple participants in the CWG.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:58 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Support for PTI and PTI board composition in the public comments

(Milton)

   FAVOR: 31

   OPPOSE: 10

   Not explicitly addressed: 6

(Kieren)

 > One key element from that: the actual numbers (rather than general sense  > and who) are not very useful because the sample is too small - the level of  >  response is not there to draw conclusions beyond areas of agreement or  > disagreement.

Yes, it is hard to quantify the reactions. An other observation is that 41 Responses is less then the (currently) 133 listed participants.


	jaap

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship