ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


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

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DRAFT version of "atoms" survey

  • To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DRAFT version of "atoms" survey
  • From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:19:30 -0400

Don't forget, "This is not applicable."

On Jun 15, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 
> 
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
>> 
>> In my opinion this was the first useful tool you've come up with.
> 
> LOL.  thanks!  i think...  :-)
> 
>> 
>> Some questions could be phrased differently, a paragraph of difficult
>> to write (so that will never happen) issue explanation copy would
>> help, and due to the relative unfamiliarity of the form there will be
>> errors. It is worth pointing out that the answers are optional, and
>> the respondent is free to go forwards and backwards ... until clicking
>> "submit", and there is no instant gratification showing that 9 out of
>> 10 dentists use Crest(tm) after clicking on "submit".
> 
> i've added a little blurb on the first page, and figured out how to turn on 
> "sharing" so that everybody can download the results.  it's still pretty 
> massively clunky, but at least it's there.
> 
>> 
>> The "I'm willing to compromise" is awkward. Is "compromise" around the
>> 15% position 20% or 200%? Is "willing to discuss" on the same question
>> 16% or 15% or 10% or 20%?
> 
> hm...  here's another try;
> 
> - I'm willing to discuss a wide range of options
> - I'm willing to discuss, but only within a narrow range of options
> - I'm not willing to discuss, this is a critical position for me
> 
> better?
> 
>> 
>> The final question is misleading, is this reviewing the work product
>> of this working group, as processed by the Council, then by the Board,
>> and then again by the Staff, plus a couple of loops through the public
>> comments process, or the "rules change for some operators at some
>> offset from time zero" question?
> 
> yep, i get that.  how about this -- "Should the Vertical Integration 
> framework (as ultimately established by the Board, and embodied in the 
> Applicant Guidebook) be reviewed again later?"
> 
> thanks Eric.  i'm still editing, so things may change some more.
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
>> 
>> Eric
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
> 
> 





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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy