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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I did not want to  look back and dissect this poll , but have one major issue. 
Can people please stop characterizing what others thought when they voted or 
what their votes meant.

To say that voting for Free Trade was a goof write in vote does not really help 
us move forward and puts down the people who believe free trade is the right 
path ahead.

People voted , they expressed their opinion on what they think is the best 
plan. It gave us an idea where everyone in the group stands, let's move forward 
with using the poll instead of casting doubt on peoples votes.


Jeff



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Caution about results from Original Poll


I wasn't confused at all about the poll.

These are complex issues and it was a matter of picking the proposal that had 
the most of what one agrees with and the least of what one disagreed with.

It would be inappropriate, I think, to take the results of the poll as anything 
indicative of group conscience without indicating it was a rough poll.

Free trade seemed to me like a write in vote, almost like writing in the name 
homer simpson when casting your vote if you don't like any of the parties or 
candidates during election time.

The newer, atomic poll seems a wise place to gauge the group.

On a lighter note, I concur with Jeff on his assessment of the chaos that 
ensues with ice cream and 5 year olds.  I think if we could have hamster wheels 
at these birthday parties that could be tied to generators, many energy 
problems could be lessened.  But let's not keep on that topic for fear I be 
branded a proponent of child labor.  Just thinking about the environmental 
impact.

jothan frakes
On Jun 16, 2010 7:01 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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.