Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Survey

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Like Ron & Brian  I had no shortage of "almost but not quite" moments while
completing the survey  and agree what is now done and the weight
/ validity of the "results" needs to be carefully considered...  Also worth
noting that my all too common reply of "I could live with that proposal"
 covers a huge range from  my Hmmm  almost  but not completely comfortable
with this, through  well needs a 'bit more work or tweeking', to a *whole*
lot more needs to be done here  but I don't reject it all outright...  Good
Luck with the collation and outcomes /reporting...  Guess we'll
be discussing this in far greater details on the morrow then...


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 15 July 2010 08:02, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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   *
>
>
>