It certainly would be appropriate to have the Ombudsman or the new Complaints Officer (scheduled to be appointed within the next two weeks) investigate.



Sent from my iPhone



> On 23 Feb 2017, at 11:12, Michael Oghia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 

> I agree, this is really concerning. If you all agree that it merits further investigation, perhaps the NCSG should submit an official statement (to Goran and staff).

> 

> Best,

> -Michael

> 

>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:03 PM, dorothy g <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> This is serious as this kind of data generation/analytics should be managed by not very complicated software. It will be very interesting to find out why this is not working.

>> best

>> 

>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>> Send a note to Goran

>>> 

>>>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 02:09, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>>> 

>>>> See this email exchange. ICANN staff claimed a public document on the ICANN website had been downloaded zero times since it was uploaded. A member of the At-Large community corrected the record, noting that they had downloaded that file several times. I too had downloaded it. So it seems we should be very careful taking ICANN at its word when it comes to statistics. I cannot help but think back to last week at the Intersessional when the SVP Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards spoke about how the Compliance pages were the most visited on the ICANN website. I hate to be so cynical, but maybe the analytics function just doesn't work — like much of the ICANN website?

>>>> 

>>>> - Ayden

>>> 

>>> 

>> 

>