RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Survey

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While I filled in the form to the best of my ability, I, too, faced the same
conundrum's Brian notes below and often had to chose 'no opinion', when in
fact I did have one but there was no appropriate response to select.  I
suspect all of us shared this experience.  Real care has to be taken with
how our Co-chairs use the results in preparing the report; and in no case
should these polls be made public, in my view.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Brian Cute
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:15 PM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Roberto Gaetano'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Survey

 

Mikey and Roberto,

 

I read the complete survey for the first time (without selecting responses
yet) and I came away confused.  I am confused about the purpose of this
particular survey and confused about what will be done with the results -
but most importantly, what might the results of such a poll provide to the
Council by way of an "unintended Chinese menu."

 


Let me provide an example:  


Question # 45. BRU1

"BRU1 believes there will be significantly increased competition (as
compared to the current marketplace) regardless of the ownership
restrictions applied to new TLDs. For example, BRU1 believes that even with
very restrictive rules, such as the DAG 4 language, there will be
significantly improved competition over the current marketplace. Given this,
and the absence of precise studies regarding harms, BRU1 favors a
continuation of the current, 15% convention in cross-ownership across all
TLDs."


I agree with the first sentence.


I do not support DAG 4 language so I cannot support the second sentence.


I support the spirit of the third sentence, but it suggests that the absence
of precise studies influences my position on 15% cross ownership.  The
implication is that if there were precise studies available, my position
might change.  The truth is, if there were precise studies on harms my
support for 15% cross ownership caps would be enhanced.


So.  How do I vote on #45?  There are many elements I support and some I
don't.


Some on the VIWG have noted, you can find support for "atoms" but that
support might disappear if the atom is attached to another atom that the
respondent does not support.  I am not a supporter of "atoms" for this
reason but also for the fact that we risk creating a Chinese menu that the
Council will cherry pick from and potentially create a "proposal" that few
in the VIWG would support.


Many of the questions in this survey go beyond atoms and combine a number of
atoms.


You asked us to engage in a "molecule" building exercise and "atom"
identification exercise in Brussels and the VIWG attendees participated in
the exercise.


In this survey, you have taken atoms, thrown them into an accelerator (in
Switzerland or Chicago - take your pick) and are asking us respond to the
atom smears on the wall!  


I know that you are working extremely hard to pull the wagon across the line
and that you, like us are a bit frazzled by all the work and time pressure.
But this survey is simply confusing and unworkable.  From a pure voting
perspective, I could register support for only the most narrowly stated
questions and not support questions that I otherwise support 80% to 90% --
knowing that this lack of support might increase the proportional support
for questions I oppose.


This doesn't work.


Regards,


Brian