ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2

  • To: Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Preliminary Status: Step 2
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:30:25 +0200

Thanks Ken for that update. I wonder if the reason we are not getting any 
projects with a lower score than 2 is that Councillors are note sufficiently 
aware that they can strike projects all together should they wish to when they 
rate them?


Le 8 juin 2010 à 21:08, Ken Bour a écrit :

> WPM-DT Members:
> I thought you might appreciate receiving a brief status report concerning 
> Step 2-Individual Councilor Ratings…
> As of this afternoon, 8 June, I have received 12 Councilor ratings 
> spreadsheets.   The deadline, as you may know, has been extended to 9 June 
> (tomorrow).   Happily, other than a few names/dates being left off (I am 
> saving the emails and renaming the attachments so that I can positively ID 
> each one), the data aggregation process is going as planned and tested.   No 
> one, thus far, has failed to provide a 1-7 rating for each of the Eligible 
> Projects.   
> You may be interested, if not surprised, to learn that not a single project 
> can be excluded from discussion after the individual rating step.   Every 
> project’s Range is already > 2 and, of course, it cannot get any tighter as 
> more results are received.   Of the 15 Eligible Projects:   
> ·         11 or 73% have a Range >= 5
> ·         7 or 46% have a Range = 6 (max)
> I have developed a consolidation spreadsheet, which is automatically 
> color-coded to reveal the top/bottom ratings and the most prevalent answer 
> (or Mode).   Fortunately, several projects have pretty stable 
> Mode/Median/Mean results meaning that, while we might have a couple of 7’s 
> and 1’s (thus Range=6), most participants rated the project similarly.   In a 
> few cases, the Mode, Median, and Mean are the identical value indicating 
> strong central tendency (so far)!   In those instances, at least 
> theoretically, it should be possible to influence the small number of 
> outliers to move closer to the group’s most common rating.   Even if that is 
> not possible, after discussion, it will be somewhat comforting to know that 
> there was reasonably strong agreement statistically. 
> For Brussels, I estimate that we will have about 105 minutes net (if we can 
> hold preliminaries to 15), which leaves an average of 7 minutes per project 
> for discussion and polling.  
> I am currently drafting a letter that I plan to send out early next week 
> (14th or 15th) addressing as many preliminaries as possible so that the 
> Brussels meeting (on Saturday morning) can be quickly focused on the group 
> ratings discussions.   This letter will cover such topics as:   Councilor 
> Preparation, Meeting Setup, Guiding Principles, and Process Flow (briefly).   
> I will be encouraging participants to arrive a few minutes early so that we 
> can speed up the routine process of settling in…
> If WPM-DT members would like to preview the letter before it goes out, please 
> let me know.   Although I recognize that you are all very busy, I would 
> appreciate another set of eyes on this next communication... 
> Regards,
> Ken Bour

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy