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 ***********************************************************