[discuss] Survey

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Mar 4 18:42:15 UTC 2014


I took the survey and put in my objections on the question I answered 
"agree, but" and 'no'.  And I wasn't all that shy about giving my 
reasons.  On FB when I asked what would happen with my points, I was 
told that they would be included, though unattributed.  I would have 
been fine with attribution, but I think that is a good idea as it gives 
everyone, even those who are cautious of the their jobs and reputations, 
a chance to say what they really want to say.

I recommend people do it.  And say No and why if that is the way you 
feel.  By giving us a 3 value answer yes, yes/but and no, they have 
neutralized their positions.

And beyond isn't it good to have as full a /1net evaluation of the 
Montevideo points as possible?  I mean the points were made, this is a 
good chance to comment.

Just saying,


On 04-Mar-14 16:42, nathalie coupet wrote:
> +1
> I decided not to take the survey, out of caution, since the questions
> seemed to be aligned with a particular position. I agree with Gregory
> that this is a non-starter.
> It would take more time to understand and evaluate all the implications
> of any response given to each question.
> It is better to do nothing rather than to add to a general feeling of
> mistrust that could sip into the \1net initiative.  How could we avoid
> adding to the confusion in the future? Could the SG consult with members
> on this list (a few sample questions of the survey presented for
> approval) before publishing the entire survey on the site?
> Nathalie
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at ReedSmith.com>
> *To:* 'Ian Peter' <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>; Nick Ashton-Hart
> <nashton at ccianet.org>; "discuss at 1net.org" <discuss at 1net.org>
> *Cc:* Ross Schulman <RSchulman at ccianet.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 4, 2014 11:16 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [discuss] Proposal for a 1net statement to NetMundial
> I just took the “survey”.  I found it to be quite slanted and full of
> leading/loaded questions/statements.  Many of the questions/statements
> have hidden agendas and previously staked-out positions attached to
> them, which are not identified.  In that vein, many of the statements
> tend to be “battle slogans,” while others sound like idealistic, “milk
> and apple pie” statements but are really aligned with a particular
> position.   The “spin” on these questions/statement makes me dizzy.
> Where are the questions stating the opposite positions in the
> affirmative (which would be consistent with good survey design, as I
> understand it)?
> Even the answer protocol is suspect, in that it is intended to herd
> respondents toward affirmative responses to the statements, most if not
> all of which are aligned with a particular worldview.
> As a draft manifesto, it is probably a good start.  As a neutral survey,
> it is a non-starter.
> (I was a Sociology/Psychology major in college, and I have worked with
> survey experts from time to time, so I’ve had some exposure to survey
> design issues, but I am no expert.  If I were one, I probably would be
> even more concerned/dismayed.)
> That aside, these statements and the concepts underlying them would need
> to be fleshed out over some time through debate and drafting (and with
> reference to constituent organizations where needed) before any kind of
> statement could be made.  Accommodations for a minority view would
> probably need to be made as well….  The discussions up to this point
> have laid much groundwork, of course, but they certainly haven’t
> resulted in any kind of /1net position on any issue (nor have they been
> intended to).
> Greg Shatan
> *From:*discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ian Peter
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 04, 2014 5:20 AM
> *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart; discuss at 1net.org
> *Cc:* Ross Schulman
> *Subject:* Re: [discuss] Proposal for a 1net statement to NetMundial
> Nick wrote
>> While this is a constructive process, it comes far, far too late:
> Have to agree unfortunately.
> I think there is no way civil society could agree to this in time for a
> March 8 deadline even if it were final and totally agreeable now (which
> it isn’t). Some individuals might like to sign on to a revised version,
> but I don’t think it can be called a 1net statement. A statement by
> participants of 1net who care to sign, perhaps.
> Ian Peter
> *From:*Nick Ashton-Hart <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>
> *Sent:*Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:38 PM
> *To:*mailto:discuss at 1net.org
> *Cc:*Ross Schulman <mailto:RSchulman at ccianet.org>
> *Subject:*[discuss] Proposal for a 1net statement to NetMundial
> Dear 1net:
> While this is a constructive process, it comes far, far too late:
> * Many of us have said repeatedly that we need time in order to go back
> to our organisations to authorise statements before we can be associated
> with them. There is no possibility we will be able to do that in the
> time available.
> * As the industry participants on the steering committee have repeatedly
> said, they are not representatives but liaisons and need to be able to
> go back to their community before major decisions are taken. Whilst CCIA
> is in the perhaps unique position that three of our members are
> represented on the steering committee, I’m sure that’s not the case for
> the vast majority of industry here and I’m sure that even for us, it is
> necessary for us to go back to the whole membership before signing on to
> something as high-profile as this is. So, suggesting that the steering
> committee can commit on behalf of all stakeholders everywhere is simply
> a non-starter (and I don’t believe industry’s situation is unique, either).
> If this had started two weeks ago, it would perhaps have been just
> enough time - barely - to get the process done. A month ago would have
> been much better. A matter of days doesn’t begin to be possible. I’ve
> provided comments to the survey but only in an individual capacity.
> I would like to know if there was any advance notice of this? I don’t
> recall seeing anything on this list (but I do not follow it closely
> anymore so I might have missed it).
> Regards, Nick
> On 4 Mar 2014, at 07:32, /1net Forums digest <info at 1net.org
> <mailto:info at 1net.org>> wrote:
> *Image removed by sender.*
> <http://mandrillapp.com/track/click.php?u=30143381&id=db94d9ea201149868230d2317299c105&url=http%3A%2F%2F1net.org&url_id=275d5ac348d8e2b8f87a20b50afccf20d2903a07>
> Here's a brief summary of the discussion on */1net Forums*
> <http://mandrillapp.com/track/click.php?u=30143381&id=db94d9ea201149868230d2317299c105&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.1net.org&url_id=f27f10722599be5b646cf36e5b1b1281abf95932>
> since we last saw you on 02-28-2014.
>       Recent posts the community enjoyed:
> *Help to create a /1net statement for NetMundial*
> <http://mandrillapp.com/track/click.php?u=30143381&id=db94d9ea201149868230d2317299c105&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.1net.org%2Ft%2Fhelp-to-create-a-1net-statement-for-netmundial%2F128&url_id=7f9d7eba43d43b5f3d70a8183e7511214e546870>
> Based on the feeling and importance that /1net should provide some kind
> of formal input to the NetMundial meeting in April, we have specifically
> developed a statement and process to meet the tight deadline for
> submitting input (Saturday 8 March).
> The statement is built from the Montevideo Statement, and split up into
> the two themes of the NetMundial meeting. There shouldn't be anything in
> this statement that is controversial or surprising if you have been
> following Internet governance discussions over the past four months.
> A few quick things to note:
> ·Having a /1net statement should not in any way preclude people from
> sending their own input to the NetMundial meeting
> ·The statement should be viewed as the broad perspective on Internet
> governance issues from the /1net community. There is plenty of
> opportunity for more in-depth discussions outside this singular event
> ·Given the tight deadline, we should as much as possible avoid
> suggestions that others will disagree with
> Process of converging on the content of the statement:
> ·An online survey gives everyone the opportunity to review each sentence
> within the draft statement. You can simply agree with it (obviously the
> preferred response), you can "Agree but…" and provide some brief
> feedback, or you can disagree and explain why you feel would need to
> change to the wording in order for you to agree.
> ·That survey will run from now until the end of Tuesday (23:45 UTC),
> at which point it will close.
> ·The results from the survey will be analyzed to see what changes
> could be made to accommodate different views - and statistics
> released to show what the feedback was (comments will be published
> but not attributed).
> ·On Thursday, a reformed statement will be put to a second survey sent
> to Steering Committee members who will act as representatives of
> their stakeholder groups in deciding yes or no to specific
> statements.
> ·That survey will close Friday and /1net coordinator Adiel Akplogan
> will review the results and decide what can be put forward to the
> NetMundial meeting as representative of /1net's view.
> It is far more rushed than is ideal but given the fact that there is
> only this week to reach agreement, hopefully you will all see the value
> in responding quickly and constructively.
> You can find the survey and the statements at:
> *https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/1net-netmundial*
> <http://mandrillapp.com/track/click.php?u=30143381&id=db94d9ea201149868230d2317299c105&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fs%2F1net-netmundial&url_id=5195d73724c12c9451ce6b05827bfb08d6a1c425>
> Please note that the survey will automatically close at 23.45 UTC on
> Tuesday 4 March.
> Thank you for your input in advance.
> This summary email is sent as a courtesy notification from */1net
> Forums*
> <http://mandrillapp.com/track/click.php?u=30143381&id=db94d9ea201149868230d2317299c105&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.1net.org&url_id=f27f10722599be5b646cf36e5b1b1281abf95932>
> when we haven't seen you in a while. To unsubscribe *click here*
> <http://mandrillapp.com/track/click.php?u=30143381&id=db94d9ea201149868230d2317299c105&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.1net.org%2Femail%2Funsubscribe%2F96cf05a55cdf0decc70d10bb043a6939c10da49b4221588913e04248c56e274b&url_id=475268c0907ecd170853a9e89cb07127e91dd106>.
> Image removed by sender._______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
> may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
> are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
> it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
> state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
> to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list