[council] Revised Whois Study Summary

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Thu Dec 11 12:16:26 UTC 2008


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-cummulative.xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 107520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20081211/61251f34/whois-studies-cummulative.xls>
-------------- next part --------------




On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:11, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Please disregard the previous Whois Studies Summary document and  
> replace it with this one.  It is requested that the RC, ISCPC, NCUC,  
> ALAC and NomCom reps fill in the two column of boxes in the table  
> and send the file back saved with the same file name with the group  
> initials added.
>
> Thanks, Chuck
> <Whois Studies Summary 10 Dec 08 v2.doc>



More information about the council mailing list