[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday December 3rd

[Seun Ojedeji]

I don't understand the opposition here. Someone has volunteered to make an
attempt to capture all comments and it seem we are resisting such effort. I
don't want to believe that we are not interested in capturing every
contribution fairly.

This continuously brings me to worry about what we have put up for
comments... It's seem to be an indication that deep inside us we know it's
not close being a solution.

I am entirely open to discussing comments even as they come in.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Dec 2014 21:24, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  And I agree with Greg agreeing with everybody. I’m in a really agreeable
> mood today ;-)
>
> Seriously, my point was exactly that we need to avoid either sequence or
> recency bias. When all the comments are in they should be processed and
> analyzed as a whole, each comment treated equally. I am sorry that Bernard
> doesn’t understand how sequence might privilege certain comments and I
> won’t bore with the explanation.
>
>
>
> If others find the service useful I have no strong objection to them
> reading it. However, I would ask the chairs to enforce a ban, punishable by
> banishment to MySpace ;-), on anyone on this list saying, BEFORE the
> deadline, “oh the public comments are saying X so we have to do Y or Z” or
> any other form of premature analysis or conclusion-drawing from an
> incomplete set of comments.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:57 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for
> Wednesday December 3rd
>
>
>
> I agree with everybody.  It's definitely helpful.  At the same time, we
> should consciously avoid privileging early comments in any fashion.  If
> these first submissions are any indication, that might not be too difficult.
>
>
>
> We should also avoid the opposite. I seem to recall discussions in my
> college psych courses of two cognitive biases: the "primacy effect" and the
> "recency effect." While this is not really the same thing, it may be a
> useful analogy.  Milton cautions us against something analogous to the
> "primacy effect," if I recall correctly.  We should also caution ourselves
> against something like the "recency effect."  In other words, we should not
> let the order in which comments come in influence our attention to them.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>  As you would probably guess my previous comment Milton, I disagree.  It
> is not perfect but for me I find it helpful.  Anyone who doesn’t find it
> helpful can ignore it.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:47 AM
> *To:* Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for
> Wednesday December 3rd
>
>
>
> Appreciate the attempt but I am not sure this is a good idea. If this
> public comment period is like every one I have ever seen before, 90% of the
> comments will come on the day of the deadline or perhaps a day before. The
> running log therefore kind of privileges early comments as they trickle in.
> Then we will be hit with a deluge at the end anyway. Might be better to
> look at all comments after they all come in.
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:35 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Comment summary for Wednesday
> December 3rd
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> This will be part of a daily log of public comments to assist us on in
> keeping track of the various postings.
>
>
>
> Comments on how to improve this welcome.
>
>
>
> B.,
>
>
>
> For December 2nd we have the following:
>
>
>
> *Date*
>
> *From*
>
> *Summary*
>
> *20141202*
>
> *Page Howe*
>
> *Current system with NTIA is doing a good job and wants it maintained.*
>
> *20141202*
>
> * Graham Schreiber*
>
> *Garbled paste into body of comment*
>
> *20141202*
>
> * Graham Schreiber*
>
> *Refers to a US supreme court case about .com (?) involving a number of
> parties including ICANN and suggesting that the transition work not proceed
> until this is resolved.*
>
> A cumulative of these summaries is provided as an Excel file - attached.
>
>
>
> B.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141203/b8bfbdc4/attachment-0001.html>