Hi,
I believe tomorrow there is another WHOIS call. Avri helpfully
suggested changing the ranking system to numeric, which will better
reflect constituency views (e.g. NCUC could rank studies as 0 rather
than low priority) and allow more precise aggregation of results.
But it's a bit hard to numerically express constituency views without
having heard what they are, so any actionable feedback would be
appreciated.
The recs etc are here https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?
whois_references and the current xls file is here https://
st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion.
If no more precise input is forthcoming, shall I just ask that zeros
be recorded for our priority assessment of each proposed study, and
that our feasibility assessments be left blank? A bit lame, but
maybe better than not responding at all...
Thanks,
Bill
On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Thanks, Bill for this great report and set of action items.
>
> Can we agree on how to proceed?
>
> a. Rank all studies Low Priority, or No Study Needed?
> Differentiate and maybe identify one or two as potentially
> desirable, to show willingness to compromise?
>
> Perfect.
>
> Reach out to RC and ALAC, or don't bother and just do our bit?
>
> If you have time, definitely reach out to RrC; ALAC will be more
> difficult because they have “processes” to follow, but maybe our
> new ALAC liaison could help us out here.
>
> Who would like to do the coordination and physical inputting of
> responses?
>
> Due to my need to travel on the early morning (European time) of
> the 18th, I cannot volunteer to do this. I would otherwise. Robin?
>
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************
|
