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

[david@farrar.com]

Marilyn Cade wrote: 
> Jonathan, and Michael and others...
> 
> Why not use the narrative questions to include other perspectives that you
> think aren't included, as informational points?

This can certainly be done by the individuals who think of this but it still 
means that the quantative data would have considerably less value than could 
have been the case.

Instead of having the responses as essential, desirable and valueless it would 
have been better to ask something like :

Please indicate whether for each data element below , you regard its inclusion 
in WHOIS as

1) Critically Important
2) Very Important
3) Moderately Important
4) Somewhat Important
5) Not at all Important

plus an option for Don't Know/No Opinion.

Another way to do it is just ask each data element to be ranked on a scale of 
1 - 10 where 1 is "Essential" and 10 is "Valueless".

Both of the above allow each data element to be given an average score which is 
useful for compararative purposes.

Question 9 as written is not without value.  One can compare the % who mark 
essential for each data element as a rough guide and ignore how the remainder 
is split between desirable and valueless.

As with others I commend ICANN/NC for doing such a survey.  Just a few days ago 
I submitted to the At Large Study Committee that multi-choice type surveys is 
one of the ways in which individuals can be involved in ICANN so it is pleasing 
to see it happen.

Has a notice gone out on icann-announce or dnso-announce alerting people to the 
survey?  Would be a good idea IMO.

DPF

--
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