Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

>  In addition, many of the questions ask about the performance of all of
the
> constituencies, which I doubt any respondent can answer with first hand
> knowledge. I realize that the poll is informal, but I think it is
important
> to note just how "informal" it is.
>
> Rod

Rod, everyone with a domain name has enough to go on. The proof is in the
pudding is an appropriate statement here. Judging by the decisions that have
ultimately been made are an indicator of how poor performance has been.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>; "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll


> Interesting attempt at polling, but many of the questions really only
allow
> for binary choices for answers.  I am not sure who drafted the questions
for
> the informal poll, but the yes/no questions in this poll will lead to
> unreliable results.
>
> The first question, for instance, requests that the respondent provide an
up
> or down on whether the current constituency structure of the DNSO is
> functional.  If I answered yes, I might still agree with those who
answered
> no...that the structure needs change. Hence, the first question will tell
us
> nothing about what we really need to know and, in fact, might produce
> misleading results.  Functionality is a very low threshold.  In fact, I
> think it is difficult to argue that the current structure of the DNSO does
> not perform some useful subgrouping function (if that is what is meant by
> functional). Consequently, I think the first question should have asked
> respondents to select one of four choices -- ranging from, perhaps, a)
> unrepresentative of stakeholders; b) incapable of consensus building; c)
> functional, but needs adjustment ; and d) current constituency structure
is
> fine.
>
>  In addition, many of the questions ask about the performance of all of
the
> constituencies, which I doubt any respondent can answer with first hand
> knowledge. I realize that the poll is informal, but I think it is
important
> to note just how "informal" it is.
>
> Rod
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
> To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll
>
>
> >
> > >An informal poll for this working group, using some of  the
constituency
> > >questions, is at http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p1puu4w_a .Results can be
> > >viewed at   http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a
> >
> > At this point, 9 people have completed the poll. I find these prelim
> > results interesting, but hope we get a larger sample of the working
group
> > (hint, nudge).
> >
> > -> "Is a constituency structure a functional method for subgrouping in
the
> > DNSO?"  5 yes, 4 no.
> >
> > This is a much more even position than I would have thought. The only
> other
> > question this evenly split regards how or by whom an individuals'
> > constituency should be implemented.
> >
> > On the other hand, there is a near-consensus (all or all but one) on the
> > following statements (rephrased from the questions):
> >
> > The current constituency structure impacts the effectiveness of the DNSO
> > and NC negatively.
> > The current process rarely or never promotes the development of overall
> > community consensus.
> > All DNSO interests are not adequately represented in the existing
> > constituency groups.
> > An individuals' constituency should be created (though nothing
resembling
> > consensus on how).
> > The constituencies should be reformulated (again, nothing resembling
> > consensus on how).
> >
> > Also of interest, no one has been willing to say that the constituencies
> > adequately represent their intended members. Nor has anyone been willing
> to
> > say that all important parts of the Internet community are represented.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > sidna@feedwriter.com
> >
> >
>