[discuss] Survey

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 4 19:30:50 UTC 2014

Marilyn Cade: I took the survey after a lot of back and forth consideration.
I have objected strongly within the 1NET SG that this sprang forth without discussion within the SG, and with a lack of any discussion within the SG on any kind of a survey, time frames, neutrality in tone in seeking broader input, what will be done with the PII of respondents [I object to using it in any way, as it was not provided for any further use/and an opt in was npt provided.
I asked to have the questions published to the 1NET SG list, but that  has not yet happened. 
Several other SG members share my concerns and I know we will be informed from feedback from our own communities, and from the Discuss list. 
For me, after seeing the post from  that on Thursday, the 1NET SG would be responding to a survey to SG members as representatives of our stakeholder groups to decide yes or no to specific statements for submission to NETMundial, I decided I had to see the questions/statements. And, I am getting queries from business colleagues not following this on a daily basis, and in many cases, from developing countries. Mostly it is what is this about? Why is it happening? How will it be used? What are we endorsing if we take this survey? 
All good questions. I had no answers about the questions in the survey. 
The only way to learn more was to take the survey. 
I found the questions/statements quite 'leading' and also in many cases, quite flawed in assumptions. While some of the first few statements are probably well supported by those who will take the survey: e.g. do you support a single, interoperable Internet? 
BUT statements that are asking if all stakeholders should always have equal footing on all decisions are misunderstanding that some decisions are highly technical in nature, and may require some expertise. 
Another strange statement was the direct assumption that ICANN and IANA are both completely alike in governance needs. It also assumed that all stakeholders should be on an equal footing  in ICANN [that sounds inviting to some, but implies that the GAC is now just one more participant -- and governments are not all able to accept that role, nor has the implications of that been studied within ICANN]  and that multiple governments making decisions about IANA is somehow a good idea. 
My advice to business folks who are asking me is this is a highly  'leading' survey. It came from some subset of the SG, and I was not aware of it, nor familiar with its contents.  I doubt that many from business will even have seen this, in spite of the effort by some to distribute it.  
As a member of the SG, I feel anxiety that we did not perform our steering function very well in this instance.  The SG is still feeling our way, so maybe this can be a learning event. 
I appreciated your comments, Nathalie. I too think that we should have followed a different process  - first in considering the mechanism and whether it is a fit for use in this instance; then if so, what kinds of information would be useful and relevant, and then, how to undertake a survey.
For instance,1) I could have envisioned a survey, with anonminity, about who [by category] the 1NET discuss list is, and their general characteristics - geo location, etc.  as useful information.  No positions, just who 1NET present Discuss community is.
2) We could have stated the topics that are most discussed as of today [from the data available] and 3) asked for a prioritization of topics that should be discussed within 1NET Discuss, again without opinions, but to show factual information and interest areas going forward.
For now, I respect that some will take the survey; others not. 
I found George Sadowsky's post very helpful in the issues it raised. 
I am in consultation with the fellow business liaisons [we are not representatives by title from our stakeholder group], and we will have to see what is reasonable, fair and supportable in the discussion Thursday.
In the meantime, I will try my best to follow the discussion about this on 1NET discuss. 

> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:42:15 +0000
> From: avri at acm.org
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Survey
> Hi,
> 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,
> avri
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140304/28f043c0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list