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.
 
  1. 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
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
***********************************************************