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

[Greg Shatan]

Seun,

I think you misunderstand.  No one is resisting the effort to capture all
comments.  Indeed, this is a core task that staff undertakes in any public
comment period.  So, your concerns are unfounded.

The objection was made only to releasing those "captured" comments in a
"daily log" format, out of concern we would give inappropriate weight to
these early comments versus comments that come later in the process.

Also, I think you are jumping to conclusions about what this conversation
is an "indication" of -- conclusions that conveniently fit with your
views.  I think this conclusion is unfounded as well.  Thinking that this
discussion about whether it's a good idea to review early comments somehow
reveals anyone's view of the draft proposal is meritless.

Greg

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/d055d536/attachment.html>