ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-trans-wg] Priorities Data

  • To: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-trans-wg] Priorities Data
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:49:40 -0600

hi Ross,

thanks for the details.  and thanks to Tim for the "anonymous" suggestion.

i'm attaching a little analysis.

i found that my top-2 picks didn't fare very well in the ranking, and was sad. but i'm perkier now. take a look at the attached PDF. i've highlighted my two favorites -- my number-1 pick ("dispute options for registrants...") and my number-2 pick ("...make information on dispute-resolution options available to registrants").

a couple observations;

- by using averages, we mask what is in fact a disagreement. many of us feel that these two items are very low priority, and a few of us think that A ("dispute options") is really important. i seem to be pretty lonely in wanting "... make info available to registrants" -- i must need educating on that one. :-)

- looking at a couple measures of dispersion (standard deviation and range) it would appear that we've got pretty substantial disagreement all the way down the line. this isn't the end of the world, but it means that we may have some work to do in coming to consensus.

- i found my rankings tended to clump into 3 broad areas -- my top picks tended to address registrant-rights and registrar-accountability issues, my middle tier wound up containing a lot of process-improvement items and my bottom-tier tended toward technical and implementation issues. if others inverted that priority, putting technical/implementation issues at the top, that might be the source of the dispersion.

- Ross, you may want to rethink giving a "19" to all of the non-responses from Person B -- that decision skewed the results pretty heavily and may have also injected more "disagreement" into the analysis than is really there.

- i like all 19 suggestions, by the way.

we may want to think about some kind of process to lobby for our favorites, and listen to the lobbying of others, with the goal of getting to a higher level of agreement.

thanks again Ross, very helpful to see the details,


At 06:38 AM 11/23/2007, Ross Rader wrote:
Tim had an excellent suggestion that I could share the data
anonymously which would get around the issue of the terms under which
I solicited the data. Great idea. I've created an anonymous worksheet
that shows the data for each submission as well as the average and
median rankings. The consensus ranking was calculating using the
median of the submissions (essentially the average of the frequency)
which shows us the "central tendency", or the mathematical middle
ground. Theoretically, this is where the consensus of the group lay in
terms of the importance of each of these items.

I've attached the worksheet as a PDF along with a brief note inline.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks again for the great suggestion Tim.

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1145 - Release Date: 11/22/2007 11:49 AM

Attachment: Ranking data.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF Document

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy