RE: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over react ...

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Jonathan, and Michael and others...

Why not use the narrative questions to include other perspectives that you
think aren't included, as informational points?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:44 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Michael Froomkin'; 'Danny Younger'
Cc: 'ga@dnso.org'
Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over
react ... 


         I think you miss Michael's point, Marilyn.  He's not saying that 
the study is statistically invalid because it allows for narrative 
responses.  He's saying that it's invalid because it's systematically 
biased in favor of one set of results.  Thus, for example, he mentions 
Question 9, which asks whether each whois data element is "essential," 
"desirable" or "valueless."  Problem is, almost any information has 
value.  Nobody would say that a registrant's postal address, say, is 
"valueless" -- but the survey gives no opportunity to say that it is 
nonetheless unnecessary, or that the privacy costs associated with 
including it outweigh that value.  Rather, the respondent's only other 
choices are that the information is either "essential" or 
"desirable."  That's a slanted question.

         I think that everyone should fill out the survey, notwithstanding 
its bias, because -- like it or not -- the responses this survey generates 
will help shape ICANN action.  But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't 
point out the survey's rather unfortunate flaws.

Jon



At 09:12 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>I agree with Danny's response. In my view, always easy to be critical;
>better to be constructive.
>
>I regret that Michael has expressed only concerns. Isn't the survey  not to
>determine an outcome in itself, but to try to gather information?
>Obviously, using narrative responses is not going to result in a
>statistically valid study; and given the method of distribution, it isn't a
>"sample", but that wasn't and isn't the point, I would say.
>
>I still encourage everyone who uses WHOIS to respond and to be
constructive.
>
>I believe that even sociologists sometimes do non-statistical "field
>research"....
>
>
>
>Marilyn
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:48 PM
>To: Danny Younger
>Cc: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."
>
>
>I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid
by
>ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying
>that
>no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I
>would
>not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).  No blame attaches for
>this,
>as there is no reason we should expect them to--it's a technical body
>(right?),
>not a social science research unit.  But nor should we place much credence
>in
>the results, whoever designed it.
>
>I don't see the value of a lot of energy being used to produce something
>that
>cannot be relied on.   The lesson is: if you are going to do a survey, run
>it by
>someone who designs them for a living.   Someone in a sociology department
>or a
>psychology department of a university who does empirical work if you can't
>get a
>professional pollster.
>
>In fact, given the bias of the design, the greater the 'outreach' for this
>survey, the greater the damage.
>
>[I'll almost certainly be offline from now until Tuesday due to travel.]
>
>Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > With regard to the WHOIS survey, Michael Froomkin writes:  "I wish
whoever
> > wrote this had consulted a professional."
> >
> > Actually, we are probably quite lucky that the Names Council's WHOIS
> > committee (of which I am also a member) wrestled this project away from
>the
> > ICANN staff which some time ago had formed its own WHOIS Committee
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/.  Yes, it might have been more
> > professional had the ICANN staff devoted their full-time professional
>skills
> > to it, but I for one am quite happy to see the uncompensated volunteer
> > members of the Names Council showing some real initiative and a desire
to
> > address the problems that lay ahead.
> >
> > Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has
been
>a
> > major effort made at outreach, along with a significant effort to
>translate
> > this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).
Please
> > bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that
will
> > fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
> > criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html