RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms" this time
- To: "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms" this time
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:55:32 -0400
> I'm concerned abt how these polls will be used in the report.
I bet you are.
> I agree with Kathy abt the value of the matrix and its use in the report,
> but these polls are confusing.
Why is it all RACK supporters who are "confused" by the poll? What a
There is nothing especially confusing about the poll results. It shows that a
large number of WG participants think there should be no ownership limits
whatsoever. It shows how many are willing to "live with" the DAGv4 and Board
resolution options, and how many are against. It shows that "Free Trade" and
JN2 have more support than RACK, but that neither has a consensus.
Those who claim that this information is "confusing" have an obligation to
explain to us what they mean. Is it "confusing" or is it-"inconvenient" or "not
what I hoped for" -- please explain in greater detail what your problem is, and
why it is not useful for the Board and the wider community to have this
information. What can it harm to know that, e.g., MMA proposed a competition
authority model with audits and that this proposal gained some support but was
not that popular; that the Free Trade proposal which opposes all ownership
limits was the top-polling proposal; that JN2 and RACK proponents had different
"live with" fallbacks?