[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] possible alternative "groups"

[Kathy Kleiman]

+1  Stephanie has produced a framework of categories that is 
comprehensive and based on the full array of "possible requirements" 
which have come before this WG. Her framework of categories draws 
heavily on her many years of experience working and drafting in the 
legal and legislative areas within the scope of this Working Group. I am 
very glad she answered Chuck's call for alternatives that build upon the 
work done by Susan and Lisa.

I second what Klaus writes below: "I urge my fellow group members to 
have a good look at what Stephanie has produced and if possible support 
its adoption and maybe suggest some further refinements."

Best, Kathy


On 7/25/2016 10:16 AM, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>
> Dear Stephanie
>
> Greetings and Thanks for your hard work. At this occasion may I thank 
> all in this group, staff or participants, who have put in so much 
> effort so far.
>
> After reading Stephanies document and thinking it over, I think this 
> is a valuable approach which I like to support. One of the important 
> points is that even the "non-experts", will have to be able to work 
> with it and understand what is going on. There might be some 
> refinements possible that even more streamline the approach and 
> categories.
>
> I urge my fellow group members to have a good look at what Stephanie 
> has produced and if possible support its adoption and maybe suggest 
> some further refinements.
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
>
> On 7/24/2016 10:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> As discussed in the call last week (July 20th), I had some 
>> alternative thoughts on the categories chosen to sort our triage 
>> spreadsheet, while very much appreciating the amount of work Lisa and 
>> Susan have already done on it.  Chuck asked me if I could come up 
>> with an alternative, as he did not want to slow down to tinker with 
>> the categories, which everyone might select differently.  
>> Accordingly, I have come up with what I hope is a framework of 
>> categories that relies more on the type of potential requirement (eg. 
>> function, technical, legal, etc) rather than keywords.  I have put 
>> almost all of the other groups into what I think are the logical 
>> slots in my proposed framework, and included a column for keywords if 
>> people really want to search by word phrases.
>>
>> I hope this may be useful. We are likely to be working with this 
>> document for a long time, so I think the sorting framework which we 
>> ultimately use may be more important than it appears at first 
>> glance.  It is really a coding mechanism for qualitative analysis, so 
>> it could introduce bias into our results if we are not careful.  My 
>> rough attempt obviously reflects my own analysis of how to sort the 
>> data, and as Chuck mentioned, each person would pick keywords 
>> differently, but I hope you agree after reading it that the matter 
>> deserves a bit more reflection.  I would be happy to answer any 
>> questions.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160725/d5455677/attachment.html>