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

[Greg Shatan]

Oh, I think Bernie knows how sequence bias might influence how we view and
react to certain comments; he just trusts us to be grown-ups in that
regard.  Now THAT may be his mistake.

And, by the way, I am already on MySpace (though all the stuff I put there
5 or 10 years ago seems to be gone).  :-) https://myspace.com/greg_shazam

But, I agree, we need to discipline ourselves and others against "jumping
the gun" and rushing to judgment.

Greg

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141203/2e6104c6/attachment.html>