[gnso-rpm-wg] Responses to previous follow up questions by the Analysis Group

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

Responses inline:

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> Follow Up Questions from the Working Group Call with the Analysis Group:
>
> 1.       On page 9 of the Revised Report, it says the median TMs registered in the TMCH was 1. Can we get more detail in buckets? (e.g. # that registered 2-5, 6-10, 11-50, 51-100, etc.) (George Kirikos)
>
> We would be happy to provide this information, subject to a new/amended revised SOW with ICANN as this will entail some additional analysis.

In order to have calculated the median statistic, that means the
Analysis Group had a dataset which consisted of a single column like:

# of TMs recorded
-------------------------
1
3
5
6
1
3
1
1

etc. with every row representing a user of the TMCH. The amount of
analysis to turn that into buckets simply involves *sorting* that data
in ascending order, and then setting the breakpoints for the buckets!
(i.e. taking a look at where the rows change from 1 to 2, 5 to 6, 10
to 11, etc.). The idea that there should be a "new/amended revised
SOW" seems to me like an attempt to extract additional money from
ICANN, and further delay the work of this PDP.

In lieu of this ""new/amended revised SOW", why doesn't the Analysis
Group simply export that raw data into either a CSV file or Excel
file, and I can take the 3 minutes to sort it myself, and 5 minutes to
scroll down and see where those breakpoints change??

Or, will providing the raw data itself require a "new/amended revised SOW"???

> 2.       On page 9 of the Revised Report, the top 10 most popular strings (e.g. SMART, FOREX, HOTEL, etc) were listed. Can we get the top 500? (George Kirikos)
>
> Yes, we can provide this information under the new/amended revised SOW as this will entail a small amount of additional work.

This answer is even sillier than #1. For #1, to calculate the median,
the data was unsorted. In order to extract the top 10 most popular
strings, this means they have a dataset like #1 in the form of

STRING,   Download Count, Trademark Holder
----------------------------------------------------------
smart      15,198,  Smart Communications, Daimler AG
forex       14,823   Forex Bank AB
hotel        14,690  Hotel Top Level Domain GMBH

etc. from page 9 of the report:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Analysis%20Group%20Revised%20TMCH%20Report%20-%20March%202017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1490349029000&api=v2

with all the rows *already sorted*!! Their "work" to date involved
simply taking this complete sorted list, and publishing just a subset,
namely the *first 10* rows.

This "small amount of additional work" involves taking the sorted
results (which they already have), and copying/pasting the first 500
rows, instead of the first 10 rows. It's really that simple, folks! [I
can see "work" being required to generate the 3rd column, if it was
done manually, but that column isn't even that critical; the first 2
columns definitely exist already in a complete set, as there's no
other way to extract the top 10 unless you've generated the entire
sorted list first).

In lieu of this ""new/amended revised SOW", why doesn't the Analysis
Group simply export the full sorted data into either a CSV file or
Excel file, and I can take the 10 seconds to copy/paste the first 500
rows (instead of the first 10 rows).

Or, will providing the raw data itself require a "new/amended revised SOW"???

I'm sure it would take longer for The Analysis Group to provide
excuses why they want a new/amended revised SOW for these 2 items than
it would take to actually provide the raw data itself, which already
exists and is trivial to transform into the requested results.

Indeed, I'm amazed that the deliverables to ICANN didn't include the
delivery of the raw data that supported the results (i.e. with a
proper SOW, ICANN should already have this data).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/