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] >> <[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> See this email exchange >> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atlarge-review-wp/2017-February/000374.html>. >> 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 >> >> >> >> >