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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

You know, minus the assertion that it was a goof, that was a fair
statement.  It seemed like it was deliberate for so many to support
it.

I think that I should have framed it differently than to call "Free
Trade" a write-in.

To better weigh in, the thought I'd hoped to suggest is that "Free
Trade", though a Utopian concept that sounds charming, fails to
practically address some of the contention areas, as (a person I
deeply respect) Jeff Neuman pointed out (in addition to the ice cream
and 5 year-old phenomenon).

While I am Quixotic about the concept around "Free Trade" being
attractive, I am pragmatic about the ability for ICANN and staff, and
the ICANN process in general --including the ability to assimilate or
smoothly steward a big swath of organic rules.   I believe we need
some clear definitions from the group.  Just responding with
Lassiez-faire is a response, but it might be worth considering if it
is obtuse to our charter.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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> 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 J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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  / 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.
>
>