RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 16 Oct 2013
After reviewing several of the comments I started wondering how we would keep track of them and use them in determining the WG final level of support for each recommendation. Reviewing and analyzing public comments is always a challenging task unless they are unanimous in their positions, which of course is rare in our environment. In this case that is compounded by the fact that there are a large number of recommendations for which we have to determine the WG's final level of support (i.e., full consensus, consensus, strong support with significant opposition, divergence). For my own purposes it would be helpful if there was a summary of the following for each recommendation: the total # of comments in support, the total # of comments opposed and the total # of comments that relate to a specific recommendation but do that clearly support it of oppose it. In addition, assuming that all comments should not be treated equally (e.g., a comment from one individual should not be weighted the same as a comment from a group that represents multiple individuals), it would be helpful to me if the comments were organized into categories like the following: comments from GNSO groups (NCSG, NPOC, CSG, BC, IPC, ISP, RrSG, RySG, ALAC) and Others (Individuals, Organizations, Small Groups and Large Groups). I fully realize that there are other factors that come into play besides simply counting how many support or oppose recommendations and we should do our best to include those as needed, but having a summary as I described should help us quickly identify the low hanging fruit; then we can spend further time on those that are not so obvious. To illustrate a way of doing this, I prepared the spreadsheet that is attached. Note that I only did it for one of the recommendation categories, the IOC recommendations. I chose the IOC because it had a small number of recommendations but the concept is directly applicable to any category of recommendations. If we applied this approach, the IOC category would become one of multiple workbooks (tabs) in a larger spreadsheet. If you look at the spreadsheet that details the RySG positions on the recommendations, you will see what I mean. If others think this is a useful and workable approach, a complete spreadsheet would first need to be designed; this would be a fairly easy task. The more challenging task would be to do an extensive review and analysis of all the comments and fill the resulting data into the spreadsheet. Here are some steps that could be used to accomplish the latter task: 1. Decide what categories of recommendations we want to use in our final report. Note that the RySG used the following seven categories: RCRC, IOC, IGOs, INGOs, General, Existing Registries & Exception Procedures. 2. Modify the Public Comments Review Tool that Berry distributed by adding the following columns: Source of Comments (GNSO Group or Other), Type of Comment Source (Identity of GNSO Group or Other Category), for each of the recommendation categories (RCRC, IOC, etc.) a column for each of the recommendations, and a comment column. 3. Solicit volunteers to review & analyze subsets of comments and fill in the data for the new columns describe in step 2. In cases of comments submitted by WG participants, I think it would be best if the applicable WG members did this for their comments but we will also need volunteers to do this for other comments. If there are plenty of volunteers, we should be able to spread the workload out pretty well. 4. Form small groups of 2 or 3 independent WG members to review the results of step 3 as a quality control measure. Again, if there are plenty of volunteers, we should be able to spread the workload out on this. 5. Enter the results of steps 3 & 4 into the summary spreadsheet. It seems to me that steps 1, 2 and 3 could begin right away and we could start planning for how to choose the small groups in step 4 right away as well. Once step 5 is done, we then should be ready as a full WG to make our final decisions about WG level of support for each recommendation in our Final Report. I personally believe that this approach or some variation of it would provide us a fairly objective way to respond to public comments and incorporate them into our final decisions. It also should be fairly easy to explain our rationale in each case. I am happy to discuss this further in our call today and to answer questions. Chuck From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 4:06 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 16 Oct 2013 WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday's meeting. Attached is the latest version of the public comment review tool for our draft Final Report. Also included is a PDF of the RySG submission. I suspect members may have had difficulty in accessing their attached spreadsheet and I reformatted the sheet to allow tab contents to fit on a single page. Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO WG Meeting - 16 OCTOBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min): 1. Review Agenda & Changes to SOI's 2. Chair's status discussion and update 3. Review Public Comments 4. Review Workplan 5. Confirm next meeting, 23 October 2013 @ 16:00 UTC [pending DST changes] Thank you. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> @berrycobb Attachment:
IGO-INGO PDP WG Public Comment Summary (IOC Only).xlsx
|