Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll Chart

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed -- I vote that we not talk about order after this -- unless it is 
related to morality. 


On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> hi,
> 
> what we, collectively, did most was object, so putting the object count first 
> has a certain poetic beauty.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 21 Jul 2010, at 17:00, Jothan Frakes wrote:
> 
>> +1 Spot on.  Take Jeff's suggestion and begin with the Objections column.
>> 
>> Jothan Frakes
>> +1.206-355-0230 tel
>> +1.206-201-6881 fax
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> There's far more votes for 'Opposed'  than anything else ---  so lets put 
>> that column first as it's the most indicative of opinion
>> 
>> Lets start with 'most opposed' and work down to 'least opposed'.
>> 
>> R
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
>> 
>>> Mikey,
>>> 
>>> I know that the issue of sorting and ranking in the presentation has been 
>>> contentious, but we need to forget about what we all want and how we jockey 
>>> our positions to the top since this report is for us to issue and for 
>>> others to read and comment. The GNSO, the Board and the Community.  We need 
>>> to think about how they will read this and understand it.
>>> 
>>> Almost every poll / results that I see has the first column ranked from 
>>> highest to lowest with the other columns following. (X axis). The 
>>> favorable, could live with  (Y axis) is fine the way it has been presented 
>>> as it goes from favorable to mediocre to negative to did not participate. 
>>> This is the standard format in almost every poll with agree on the far left 
>>> and disagree on the far right with no opinion last.
>>> 
>>> I know some people are going to go against my suggestion and say we need to 
>>> randomize or draw straws or rock paper scissors, but I believe that in the 
>>> interest in putting out a coherent report we need to stick to standards 
>>> that most consumers of this report will understand
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Jeff Eckhaus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> PS –I may be rusty but would take Berry on in an excel contest. Could do 
>>> pivot tables and vlookups in my sleep J
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:14 PM
>>> To: Berry Cobb
>>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll Chart
>>> 
>>> wow.  Berry is the first person i know who actually knows how to use 
>>> PivotTables in Excel!  that catapults him into Excel Ghod status for me.
>>> 
>>> dear all.  you're right -- JN2's row got goofed up last night when i typed 
>>> it in.  i checked against Berry's results, and the results on the front tab 
>>> of the spreadsheet i sent (which is also correct), and for the life of me i 
>>> don't know where those numbers came from.  just a late-night error.  
>>> anyway, here's what the table looks like in the next version of the draft.
>>> 
>>> Proposal Name
>>> In Favor
>>> Could Live With
>>> Opposed
>>> No Opinion
>>> Did not vote
>>> JN2
>>> 12
>>> 11
>>> 16
>>> 2
>>> 26
>>> RACK+
>>> 12
>>> 3
>>> 23
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> Free Trade
>>> 16
>>> 4
>>> 20
>>> 1
>>> 26
>>> CAM3
>>> 2
>>> 12
>>> 24
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> IPC
>>> 1
>>> 5
>>> 29
>>> 5
>>> 27
>>> DAGv4
>>> 0
>>> 11
>>> 27
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> 
>>> 
>>> hm...  on to the ranking sequence...  i can't remember where that sequence 
>>> came from...
>>> 
>>> so here it is in alphabetical order (i thought about that rAscal Tim's idea 
>>> of using the second letter of the proposals for the alpha sequence, until i 
>>> realized that 3 proposals have "A"s in that second slot)
>>> 
>>> Proposal Name
>>> In Favor
>>> Could Live With
>>> Opposed
>>> No Opinion
>>> Did not vote
>>> CAM3
>>> 2
>>> 12
>>> 24
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> DAGv4
>>> 0
>>> 11
>>> 27
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> Free Trade
>>> 16
>>> 4
>>> 20
>>> 1
>>> 26
>>> IPC
>>> 1
>>> 5
>>> 29
>>> 5
>>> 27
>>> JN2
>>> 12
>>> 11
>>> 16
>>> 2
>>> 26
>>> RACK+
>>> 12
>>> 3
>>> 23
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Berry Cobb wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Team,
>>> 
>>> I used Pivot Tables to validate the summary numbers.  Please see the 
>>> pivot_proposal tab.
>>> 
>>> For some reason, JN2+ numbers were off on “Can Live With”, “Oppose”, and 
>>> “No Opinion”.  All the other numbers seem to be right.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Berry Cobb
>>> Infinity Portals LLC
>>> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://infinityportals.com
>>> 866.921.8891
>>> 
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:48 AM
>>> To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll Chart
>>> 
>>> Just checked and apologize, Jeff.  You’re right.  JN2 had 11 Can Live 
>>> Withs.  Poll results attached.
>>> 
>>> RA
>>> 
>>> Ronald N. Andruff
>>> President
>>> 
>>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>>> 220 Fifth Avenue
>>> New York, New York 10001
>>> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>>> 
>>> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:40 AM
>>> To: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll Chart
>>> 
>>> The JN2 data is NOT correct.  I cant speak for the others.  Can someone 
>>> send the raw data.  Don’t understand how JN2 supporters (and those that can 
>>> live with it) had no duplicates, was the first in terms of overall support, 
>>> and now goes to last.
>>> 
>>> Something is not right.
>>> 
>>> Please provide the raw data!
>>> 
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>>> 
>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the 
>>> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
>>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
>>> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
>>> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
>>> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and 
>>> delete the original message.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:25 AM
>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll Chart
>>> 
>>> Milton’s post was using old data with duplicates and the like, Jeff.  The 
>>> new numbers are correct by my read.
>>> 
>>> RA
>>> 
>>> Ronald N. Andruff
>>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>>> 
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:33 AM
>>> To: Mike O'Connor
>>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New version of the report-draft candidate -- 
>>> now Version 5
>>> 
>>> Here is what is in line 814 (Of the redline).
>>> 
>>> Proposal Name
>>> In Favor
>>> Could Live With
>>> Opposed
>>> No Opinion
>>> Did not vote
>>> JN2
>>> 12
>>> 4
>>> 20
>>> 1
>>> 26
>>> RACK+
>>> 12
>>> 3
>>> 23
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> Free Trade
>>> 16
>>> 4
>>> 20
>>> 1
>>> 26
>>> CAM3
>>> 2
>>> 12
>>> 24
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> IPC
>>> 1
>>> 5
>>> 29
>>> 5
>>> 27
>>> DAGv4
>>> 0
>>> 11
>>> 27
>>> 2
>>> 27
>>> 
>>> I think the could live with and “Did not vote” columns are messed up.  I 
>>> cant remember the raw results, but here is what Milton posted on his blog.
>>> 
>>> Ranked by # supporters 
>>> 1 Free Trade 16 39%
>>> 2 JN2 12 29%
>>> 3 RACK+ 11 27%
>>> 4 CAM3 2 5%
>>> 5 DAGv4 0 0%
>>> 
>>> Ranked by acceptability
>>> 1. JN2 25 61%
>>> 2. Free Trade 20 49%
>>> 3. RACK+ 15 41%
>>> 4. CAM3 14 37%
>>> 5. DAGv4 11 29%
>>> 
>>> Ranked by strength of opposition 
>>> 1. DAGv4 27
>>> 2. CAM3 24
>>> 3. RACK+ 23
>>> 4. Free Trade 20
>>> 5. JN2 15
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the 
>>> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
>>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
>>> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
>>> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
>>> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and 
>>> delete the original message.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:27 AM
>>> To: Neuman, Jeff
>>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New version of the report-draft candidate -- 
>>> now Version 5
>>> 
>>> eh?  V4 and V5 poll results look the same to me.  are we looking at the 
>>> same spot?  right around line 268-273 depending on which draft?
>>> 
>>> note that the columns have changed from Ron's draft -- his draft followed 
>>> my convention of combining the Support and Live-With numbers in one column. 
>>>  this version breaks them apart and doesn't add them together.  there was a 
>>> sub-thread about that...
>>> 
>>> mikey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mikey,
>>>> I know you said no content changes, but the poll results are off.....I 
>>>> think columns are mixed up.....
>>>> 
>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the 
>>>> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
>>>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
>>>> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
>>>> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
>>>> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately 
>>>> and delete the original message.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>>> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:10 AM
>>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New version of the report-draft candidate -- now 
>>>> Version 5
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> all hail Margie and Marika!
>>>> 
>>>> Marika updated the report and fixed a whole bunch of formatting problems 
>>>> in the draft i published last night.  the latest version is Version 5, out 
>>>> on the wiki at;
>>>> 
>>>>    
>>>> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots
>>>> 
>>>> this version is strictly a formatting revision, no content changes.  but 
>>>> it's the one you should use because line-numbers have changed a bit from 
>>>> my draft.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> mikey
>>>> 
>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>> phone     651-647-6109 
>>>> fax             866-280-2356 
>>>> web       http://www.haven2.com
>>>> handle    OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
>>>> etc.)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone       651-647-6109 
>>> fax         866-280-2356 
>>> web   http://www.haven2.com
>>> handle      OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>>> Google, etc.)
>>> 
>>> <VI SurveySummary_07202010_bac.xls>
>>> 
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone    651-647-6109  
>>> fax                          866-280-2356  
>>> web        http://www.haven2.com
>>> handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
>>> etc.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may 
>>> include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand 
>>> Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other 
>>> than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying 
>>> to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
>> 
>> 
> 
>