Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Cleaning up the data

[Ron Wickersham <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Mike O'Connor wrote:

---snip---

> i didn't cull people just because they didn't put in an email address -- we didn't make 
> that field mandatory on the questionnaire and we asked them to enter if only if they were 
> willing to have us contact them with followup questions.  i knew a lot of the 
> "non-email-address" people personally.  :-)
---snip---

thanks Mikey for the organization.

i wasn't able to attend the last teleconference but listened the recording
and recognize the point that the ICANN rules require identification of the
respondent.

but, agreeing with you on keeping in people who didn't include an e-mail 
address, since the instructions requested this identification only if they
were willing to be contacted for followup questions.

still, throwing out almost one out of 8 responses even though the
instructions didn't indicate that anonymous responses would be ignored
concerns me (with respect to transparency, and a personal idea of fairness).

it seems to me that PEDNR could take the position of requiring "strict" 
compliance with ICANN rules (even though we didn't recite them in the
instructions), or allow all responses, even those anonymous (or from John
Doe entered in the required name block).

if the "heavy" work of catagorizing responses is sufficiently automated,
would it be too much to ask that two summaries be produced, one that
includes 100 percent of the responses and one with Mikey's cull?

if the two are very similar, then would it not be better to only use the
100 percent result (recognizing that the survey instructions did not
inform the respondent that identifiying him/her self would be required
to have their responses count?

i'm concerned that public participation in ICANN matters is very small, 
and from personal experience have been discouraged with participation in 
the earliest days of ICANN from this regard, so ask for discussion on the 
merits of including 100 percent of the responses (assuming that we don't
identify manipulation, "capture" or other "gaming").

-ron