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

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Let me put this in a constructive manner,

It is one thing to draft a sloppy questionaire and quite another to draft a
krafty one.  Whoever drafted the Whois questionaire did a great job. "When did
you stop beating your husband."  Marketers and pollsters have known for hundreds
of years how to draft leading questions which draw the answers to a logical
conclusion in favor of what the questioner wants.  In court these are called
leading questions and are generally objectionable.
(interesting to note that an exception is with small children or incompetants)

So in anticipation we should realize that this questionaire is specifically
designed to show the status quo is just fine or that there is no reasonable
alternative.  It is also designed to prove participation by the masses and lend
credence to any board decision as bottoms up. We must decide to participate or
not--lend credence or try to answer in such a way as to thwart a predetermined
result.
(and the Dictator thumped his chest and proclaimed the results of the open
election.....)

Sincerely,

"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-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