RE: [wg-review] Pose Issues, Number Them, Keeping them in Queue

[Barry Leeper <BLeeper@ibill.com>]

Through the use of the newsgroup e-mail, you have already determined those
who are squarely focused central to the issues, capable of setting the stage
for appropriate polling of the body within the workgroup.  Therefore, rather
than deciding if effective polls can be taken at this time, it seems as
though it would be appropriate to begin framing the actual questions that
will be posed so that you can step forward, eliciting appropriate responses,
giving ample time for debate of the issues.  

Instead of posturing and setting the stage for whether it is appropriate to
establish guidelines for the guidelines and side issues associated with
timing, why not have each individual who has an issue for the workgroup to
consider, numerically pose their issues so that each can be established for
potential formal responses.  Then, those who are centrally focused with the
knowledge of the past history and present tasks at hand can sort out the
questions that are irrelevant, re-posting the appropriate questions, forming
them without bias to obtain an appropriate sample within the workgroup time
frame.  This will enable timely action, a key to completing the
responsibilities of the workgroup.  

Example: "Issue - 1.00 ; Do you support the ________ goals of the DNSO,
which is to _______".  Each time a new question is added to the text body,
the old question remains in the text body while the new one is given a
number, adding to the old ones already issued.  Should two individuals pose
questions, without knowledge of the other's numbering, an appropriate
re-numbering can be set when the issues can be appropriately grouped or
renumbered once they have been determined to be relevant and worthy of
formal consideration by the wg. In the interim, keeping them in the body as
new questions are posed, will preserve the order in which they were
elicited.  This kind of formal organization will enable you to rapidly move
forward, engaging all who may provide worthy issues, instead of trying to
formulate who, how and what representation may be appropriate, putting you
right into the central issues, giving those on the sidelines a chance to
weigh the issues, comment and later vote as the ideas take hold.

When considering threshold questions, it is imperative that those who frame
the issue under consideration, do so in a way that it will not to skew the
sample.  The stakeholders may wish to set the threshold high enough so as
not to impair the sample, including issues which can be addressed easily by
all who may be inclined to respond.  Deriving a true representation of the
body may be difficult if too much emphasis is placed upon the questions
instead of the timely content and context of the issues themselves.

Barry Leeper
Please note my e-mail address change to craig@yep.com, which has already
been set with the wg-review newsgroup

-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:rod@cyberspaces.org]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:32 AM
To: wg-review@dnso.org; Greg Burton
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll


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
>
>