RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] For Final Review - Updated PEDNR Initial Report

[berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Alan,

Section 6.1, page 37, last paragraph.  I do not find the numbers  
provided by Compliance as speculative with exception to the next to  
the last sentence.
"Adding these three categories (644+73+355) results in 1272  
complaints, or at least 15% of all compliance complaints related to  
renewal."
The 644 number is the speculation.  Just because the two words  
searched within the complaint appear 644 times is not a clear  
indication that it is in fact an Expiration issue.  I can accept the  
644 number if the Compliance team has reviewed each one of the  
complaints and confirm that they are indeed expiration related.
To that end, that is why I also disagree with the comment & use of the  
.0006% number posted by the Rr team, because not all expiration issues  
are reported to ICANN compliance.
As for the other page numbers, I guess it best to just run spell check again.

Thanks. B


Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://infinityportals.com
866.921.8891

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx  
[mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 3:42 PM
To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] For Final Review - Updated PEDNR Initial Report


Berry, can you be specific regarding what section this is referring
to (page numbers vary by version). I don't think that any of the
numbers offered by compliance were speculative. they were the numbers
actually recorded for the first 7 months of 2009.

Alan

At 30/05/2010 06:18 PM, berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> p. 38: I suggest removing all the redline, as any of the numbers
> introduced here are all speculative.  The numbers offered by
> compliance are only in regards to how users are likely
> mis-categorizing issue tickets.