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

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

My point was not to critique your poll. I appreciate the effort. My point is
the poll is not going to get us anywhere, but, perhaps, misleading results
that others might cite as meaningful.

I suggest we start with threshold questions. For example: Is the DNSO
constituency structure representative of Internet stakeholder interests?

My answer is no. There are stakeholders who are not yet included; namely,
individual domain name registrants.  In addition, I think there should be a
list of objective criteria applied to all constituencies that the DNSO may
rely upon to determine whether the constituency is actually representative.
This criteria should support the consensus-building goals of the DNSO, which
is to make policy recommendations to the BoD. Should we attempt to list
these?

Rod






----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll


> At 09:43 PM 12/28/00, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> >Interesting attempt at polling, but many of the questions really only
allow
> >for binary choices for answers.
>
> Interesting observation, since only the first question requires only a
"yes
> or no" answer. Have you looked at the actual poll, and compared it to the
> questions we're supposed to be looking at for our report? I think the poll
> does a far better job of allowing for a range of answers than the board
> questions do, but I'm no doubt biased :)
>
> >  I am not sure who drafted the questions for the informal poll,
>
> I drafted it as a snapshot poll to see where the group is at currently,
and
> as a quick method for seeing where major agreement and major disagreement
> occur. I am not trained in polling, but I have extensive experience in
> consensus process - take it for what you will.
>
> >  but the yes/no questions in this poll will lead to
> >unreliable results.
>
> See above. The first question is a question about philosophy of structure,
> not a question about specifics.
>
> >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.
>
> No, it doesn't. It asks if a constituency structure is a functional
method.
> If I'd wanted to ask about the current constituency structure, I would
have
> been specific. I think you misread the question :) If so, you're not the
> only one - someone else has too, but they misread it because they thought
> of "constituency" in a wider sense than the type of constituency provided
> by the bylaws.
>
> >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.
>
> Actually, almost all respondents so far have indicated that the structure
> needs change, regardless of their answer to the first question.
>
> >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).
>
> Almost half the respondents have answered that it isn't a functional
> methodology, so others don't seem to have that problem.
>
> >  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 agree with you. Perhaps you should also read the board questions from
the
> board on which I based this, compare it to the way I phrased them, and
then
> critique from that?
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
>