[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Caution about results from Original Poll

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff
Again, debates about the interpretation of the results are entirely legitimate, 
and many of the cautions Jeff N introduces are worth paying attention to. 
What got me hot was the attempt to keep the results out of the official report 
and to pretend as if we don't know _anything_ about how support for various 
proposals is distributed across the WG. I think we do know important things 
about support levels now, and how the acceptability space is divided, thanks to 
the poll. I think reporting on that is a vital part of the final report. We can 
add all kinds of provisos and qualifications, including the obvious fact that 
some people may change their position or modify the proposals. But we have to 
report on the results of the proposals poll. I feel very righteous about this 
because the proposal I am associated with didn't do so hot, so it should be 
obvious I have no hidden agenda in doing this. I just think it's an essential 
part of the WG output, and is vital information for anyone trying to figure out 
how to move forward from here. 

--MM
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Neuman, Jeff [Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:58 AM
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Caution about results from Original Poll

All,

I do believe the first poll on the proposals was in fact useful and a really 
good exercise.  And I am not just saying that because the JN2 proposal got the 
most “yes” votes.  My caution, however, is that some are now describing the 
“Free Trade” proposal as the one that most people support because of the number 
of people that either said “yes” or “can live with.”  I do not believe that 
view is entirely accurate.  This is because both the JN2 proposal and the RACK+ 
proposal both dealt with limitations on ownership/control.  People were divided 
on how exactly to limit ownership/control, but not on the concept of whether to 
apply restrictions.

The analogy I use is my oldest daughter’s birthday party this year where the 
kids had a choice of “Mixed Fruit”, “Chocolate Ice Cream” or “Vanilla Ice 
Cream”.   7 kids (surprisingly) chose mixed fruit, 6 kids chose chocolate ice 
cream and 6 kids chose “Vanilla Ice Cream”.  So of the 19 kids at the party, 
more of them chose Fruit than any other choice, so that would be a true 
statement.  However, it would also be true that more kids choice “Ice Cream” in 
general instead of fruit.

Here we have the same type of thing.  Taken one way, more people chose the Free 
Trade Proposal than chose RACK.  But, looked at a different way, more people 
chose to apply limits on cross ownership/control than chose Free Trade.

We just need to remember the ice cream/mixed fruit analogy going forward.

P.S.  Never have a party with 19 screaming 5 year olds and offer them ice 
cream….very messy and the sugar high afterwards is a killer ☺



Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.