[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Public Consultation Statistical Analysis V2.0

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

thanks. 
numbers to stare at for a while.

Interesting bottom line:

> Conclusions - The only thing these 3 groups have in common is that the
> proposal is too complex, that IANA should not be shifted from ICANN at
> the beginning of the transition and that accountability needs to be in
> place prior to the transition.
>

On 06-Jan-15 14:27, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> All (at the request of the co-Chairs),
>
> Please find attached  the next version (2.0) of the analysis (based on
> the previous spreadsheet which was presented on December 30th).
>
> All the data used is included as well as how it was classified etc.
> and the various tabs are aptly named.
>
> Tabulation of results has now been automated to avoid errors.
>
> There are no significant differences vs the results presented December
> 30th:
>
>   * The analysis of all the responses together is essentially the same
>     and still does not give a majority to Contract Co.(when using a
>     75% requirement)
>   * The analysis by type of respondent is useful but the cross
>     comparisons are not, at least in my opinion.
>   * The analysis of ccTLDs vs the RySG proposal in interesting.
>   * The analysis of In ICANN vs Not In ICANN is very interesting with
>     a high degree of correlation on many points by those In ICANN.
>
> 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/20150106/523feff1/attachment.html>