Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Tue Mar 4 19:51:17 UTC 2014
A point-by-point debate on the Montevideo Statement would be fruitful. Even this "survey," flawed though it is, could be fruitful in examining the range of voices here.
Using the results as the basis for anything more than an internal exercise is not fruitful. Using this as the primary basis for a statement “representative of /1net’s view” (that is “view” (singular) not “views” plural) is unconscionable.
Consider the process (copied below with my comments at >>) – at least as flawed as the survey:
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.
>>”obviously the preferred response”? “obviously the preferred response”?? “obviously the preferred response”??? Ladies and Gentlemen, we are being railroaded.
>> “You can simply agree with it” Those who agree are not required to explain their views (I guess because it is “obviously the preferred response”), but if you have the temerity to disagree (even slightly) you must explain yourself. Hardly neutral.
• That survey will run from now until the end of Tuesday (23:45 UTC),
at which point it will close.
>> Ridiculously short time-frame.
• 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).
>> Analyzed by whom? The Great and Powerful Oz? The man behind the curtain?? And why is the default that the Montevideo re-mix is the “base state” that might be changed. And changed to what? And will we surveymonkey-slaves ever see the reworked statements? (Answer: no, see below)
• 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
>> If the SC member are going to act as representatives of their stakeholder groups, how will they have enough time to get feedback from these stakeholders? I have yet to see a single communication from the “private sector” reps (as a group) to the private sector hoi polloi down here in discuss-land. Helluva time to work out a communications protocol.
>> SC members only vote “yes” or “no” – no chance to move or refine the statements? So we have a tyranny of the majority (whatever happened to consensus driven bottom up multistakeholderism?) and the SC turned into high-functioning surveymonkeys. And is it a simple majority? Or a supermajority? What about minority views?
• 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.
>> Ah, here is the Great and Powerful Oz. How does this become one person’s decision, that never comes back to the SC or the people? I know that Adiel is working hard on this /1net thing and that work is much appreciated, but effort does not translate into power.
I don’t think that anything valid can come out of this process. I’ve worked within the system (by responding to the survey), but I am tempted to look for a bottle of vodka, an alcohol-soaked rag and a match….
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:12 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Survey
If you are looking for, and believe in, statistical truths, yes, that is true - and all the statistical work I have done, and the course i took as a social sciences grad student, tells me so. But this is survey monkey, not statistical social science.
If, however, you consider it anecdotal evidence of a self selected group that gives a range of possible ways of looking at something, it can give a clue - especially if there is broad range of opinion.
Before this we had only the Montevideo statement which was our Dear Leaders' statement that had little vetting with all the folks at the bottom. Now we are adding a few of the bottom voices to the mix. As one of the voices towards the middle of the heap, I am glad to have it recorded somewhere.
On 04-Mar-14 18:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 06:42:15PM +0000, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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.
> I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more strongly. Junk surveys are
> an effective way to trump up mistakes, confusion, nonsense, and even
> lies as truth. This survey was either designed by people who don't
> know what they are doing, or else it is an attempt to misrepresent the
> opinions of a group. Bad surveys are _worse_ than no knowledge at
> all, because they mislead people into thinking that they know
> And the three-way answer is almost impossible to evaluate and is
> certainly impossible to analyse numerically, because the middle value
> there is effectively uncountable.
> Best regards,
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
* * *
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss