RE: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Work Suspension Question
- To: <gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Work Suspension Question
- From: "Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:15:31 -0700
Wilson & Team
The survey tool looks great and it seems to meet the requirements that the
WG has outlined. Thank you for your hard work with this.
ICANN Staff is working on the latest version of the survey questions. A 1st
draft for the IRD Requirement 7 has been added, and Staff is making an
attempt at normalization (although the language and tone across the
questions is fairly consistent already). Upon enhancement to R9 & R10, the
draft survey should be in good shape for review by the WSWG when we
reconvene after April 12th.
The week of 2 April 2012, I will send out a Doodle poll to schedule our next
session. I will work with Michael to suggest we schedule a few two-hour
sessions vs. our 90 minute sessions to make up for lost time.
Staff, Michael, and Don are meeting soon to review the logistics and content
of the proposed webinar sessions for when the WG submits the draft survey to
the Council and a public comment period is opened.
Please let me know if you have any questions. In the meantime, if anyone
has suggested changes to your assigned survey requirements or suggestions
for other questions, I will gladly accept them.
Thank you. B
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
[mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wilson Abigaba
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 01:36
To: MICHAEL YOUNG
Cc: Prosser, Susan; Brigner, Paul; Don Blumenthal; Whois Survey WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Work Suspension Question
Hi Team Members,
I agree with Susan that my workload won't change after the application
period but the good thing is we'll all be to continue . I think it would be
best to get confirmation from the team members that April is the best time
to restart and commit to sticking to the timelines thereafter. A doodle poll
for this, perhaps?
Regarding my action items, I was supposed to review survey code capability
to enable user return to survey for completion at later time and also draft
the survey after the team have given me their edited questions (that comply
to the question types we agreed on).
I didn't not receive any feedback regarding the edited questions, so I just
decided to start on the draft survey using the questions we already had. I
also confirm that its possible to continue an unfinished survey (as you will
see below) but I must stress (again) that I feel the questions we have are
way too many. The link to the draft survey (only the first few questions) is
Please review, and if you have spare time, please give feedback.
By the way, I will be in San Jose this weekend for the meeting. If any if
you are planning to be there, it would be interesting to meet with you
during the course of the week.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 07:13, MICHAEL YOUNG <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the feedback Susan,
I'm afraid we would need to see some output from everyone to warrant the
next meeting. I can't justify scheduling another meeting until we have
something to review.
Berry could you please remind everyone about what's outstanding in the
Everyone, if you could respond to Berry with firm delivery dates for your
commitments we can plan on another meeting based on when we can have some
work to go over.
Susan if we can get output, I'm happy to keep on with the schedule - let's
see what the group is able to offer for hard deliverables.
On 2012-03-04, at 10:59 PM, Prosser, Susan wrote:
I can understand the reason behind your suggestion, Michael. We need active
involvement from all members.
But, I agree with others comments. April 12 will not change my workload. I
would prefer we stay with current schedule.
On Saturday, March 3, 2012, Brigner, Paul <Paul_Brigner@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am sorry for jumping in and out so quickly, but I will be moving to
another organization in a couple of weeks and I do not expect I will be able
to participate as I make the transition. I wish you all the best as you
continue to work on this project.
> Best regards,
> Paul Brigner
> On Mar 3, 2012, at 8:42 PM, "Don Blumenthal" <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> My distractions haven't been from the new gTLD process and are easing up
(I hope). I appreciate the idea behind holding the process until April but
I'm not sure that it will make a difference for those who are involved in
the new domain process.
>> From: Michael Young
>> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:53:32 -0500
>> To: Whois Survey WG
>> Subject: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Work Suspension Question
>> Hi All,
>> As you may have noticed from lack of traffic on our mailing list, we are
struggling with getting our volunteer's time and attention these days. I am
quite proud we made as much forward progress as we did in January and early
February but we seem to be in ever-increasing conflict with the many effects
of the new TLD application period. As you know I've talked with a number of
you and we've collectively talked on the call about the immense work load
many are under at the moment. We lost one of our co-chairs to this issue
>> This is an exceptional time in our industry but I believe that once the
applications are in there will be a period where people are more available
again. The approval and processing period of the applications provides us
with some respite - although we will all have our regular "day" jobs still.
As I result I suggest we suspend our efforts until April 16th when we would
reinitiate our meetings. At this point I think we can accelerate again and
make up for the lost time. Our recent new approach is more efficient and
will just a little time from our volunteers, I believe we can catch up to
our original intended schedule (in terms of results).
>> My question to the group is, do you agree this is a practical suggestion
or do you wish to suggest another alternative?
>> Wendy, if the group agrees, we would ask you to communicate this schedule
adjustment to the council on our behalf.
>> Thanks everyone.
>> Best Regards,
>> Michael Young
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> M:+1-647-289-1220 <tel:%2B1-647-289-1220>
>> MICHAEL YOUNG