ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-igo-ingo]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 16 Oct 2013

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 16 Oct 2013
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:37:00 +0000

I revised the spreadsheet to include the NCUC under GNSO Groups as pointed out 
by Mary in our call today.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:11 AM
To: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 16 Oct 2013
Importance: High

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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 4:06 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 v2 (IOC Only).xlsx
Description: IGO-INGO PDP WG Public Comment Summary v2 (IOC Only).xlsx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy