RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard and all,

 

In response to Richard's question regarding why not BRU 1 and 2, in my view
they were work sessions where two groups agreed to a collection of ideas
call BRU 1 and 2.  Nothing more.  That is, the whole of the WG did not
consider all of the things spoken about in what was originally three groups,
if you recall.  So what we had were three several hour discussions without
any direction other than group mind driving them and where, in some places,
a number of people coalesced around certain ideas.  That is not good enough
to meet the measure of the other long discussed and considered proposals, as
I see it.  Therefore, they are not considered in the chart.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:30 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

 

We also need to take out duplicates, which I am not sure has been fully
done.  Mikey?

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

  _____  

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.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:44 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

 

Thanks Ron. That's exacty the kind of thing I had in mind. For example, I
know of at least two members who have been active on calls and who supported
RACK that did not vote. Recent communications with them off list indicate
they are still supportive of it. I'm not suggesting we add their support to
the poll numbers, the poll is what it is. But the fact that they were
members who did not vote is material, in my opinion. We should not try to
second guess or make assumptions about why members chose not to respond to
the poll, and we should not just ignore them as if they don't exist.

 

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces
From: "Ron Andruff" < <mailto://randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 9:58 am
To: "'Roberto Gaetano'" < <mailto://roberto@xxxxxxxxx> roberto@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'Tim Ruiz'"
< <mailto://tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Mike O'Connor'" < <mailto://mike@xxxxxxxxxx> mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <
<mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>



How about a graph/pie chart that looks like this? (Of course we need to put
in the numbers of those that did not vote).

 

 


Proposal Name

In Favor

Opposed

In Favor + Could live with

No Opinion

Did not vote


JN2+    

12

16

25

2

?


Free Trade    

16

23

20

1

?


RACK+    

13

23

18

2

?


CAM    

2

25

16

2

?


DAGv4   

0

27

14

2

?

 

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

New York, New York 10001

 

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From:  <mailto://owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [ <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:43 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'
Cc: 'Mike O'Connor';  <mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

 

 

I thought it was clear from the numbers that not all members participated,

as we have the total count.

But we can be more explicit about that. Maybe we can have a "did not vote"

group that accounts for that, rather than artificially lumping them together

with "no opinion".

After all, they might well have an opinion, but chose or were forced by

external circumstances not to express it.

Cheers,

Roberto

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From:  <mailto://owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 

> [ <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz

> Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 01:10

> To: Roberto Gaetano

> Cc: 'Mike O'Connor';  <mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

> 

> 

> Roberto,

> 

> I think this is a reasonable approach. I would only ask that 

> it be clear that not all of the WG members responded to the 

> poll, perhaps considering them along with the No Opinion. 

> 

> Tim  

>  

> -------- Original Message --------

> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

> From: "Roberto Gaetano" < <mailto://roberto@xxxxxxxxx> roberto@xxxxxxxxx>

> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:03 pm

> To: "'Mike O'Connor'" < <mailto://mike@xxxxxxxxxx> mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <
<mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

> 

> 

> I would like to try to throw in a proposal. You might propose 

> a poll for accepting or rejecting it ;>)

> 

> Let me start by saying that the way the big poll was designed 

> was not for public consumption but for indication to the WG 

> on the areas on which we were converging to consensus vs the 

> areas on which opinions were scattered around. Let me also 

> admit that the poll went a bit out of hand, as we added 

> questions as ideas came, neglecting the fact that at the end 

> the result would have been a table far too detailed and 

> therefore far too complex, in particular for the general 

> public who has not followed the whole path we went through to 

> get there.

> 

> So, the main question is what could be useful (and simple 

> enough) to be provided for general availability. My personal 

> answer is "the proposals".

> The results of this part of the poll are easy to understand, 

> reflect the positions of the group, show that there is a wide 

> diversity and (for the time being) lack of consensus. 

> Moreover, part 6 will give the major features of the 

> different proposals, and so people can immediately link the 

> proposals with the acceptance figures. So, it is right on the 

> scope, easy to understand, and meaningful.

> 

> In terms of formats, I would not disclose who voted what, 

> just give the results. The percentages are meaningful, 

> individual votes would only create unnecessary gossips on why 

> somebody voted in that way. Also, a pie chart visually 

> showing the sizes of the "Yes";"No";"Maybe";"Uuh?" 

> percentages could give a more immediate picture to those who 

> do not like going through the figures.

> 

> All the rest of the information, about the atoms, is 

> something we will have to crunch and digest in the next 

> weeks, so it is not wasted effort, is just something not 

> ready for prime time. We can mention in the report itself, 

> though, that several polls were taken (we have consensus on 

> this, reading the chat of today) to have a "show of hands" 

> for checking whether we were converging towards consensus.

> 

> Cheers,

> Roberto

> 

> 

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From:  <mailto://owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

> > [ <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor

> > Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 23:00

> > To:  <mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

> > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

> > 

> > 

> > oh well...

> > 

> > i, as the charter member of the O'Connor Foundation for Continuous 

> > Polling (OFoCoPo for short) yield and cry "uncle"...

> > 

> > i would like to see a definition, from the group, as to what 

> > constitutes an acceptable process to determine who supports which 

> > proposals. i think releasing a report without that tally pretty 

> > dramatically reduces the credibility of our report and strains the 

> > limits of transparency.

> > 

> > it's clear that the current poll doesn't stand a chance of getting 

> > through all of your objections.

> > 

> > so. how do we get that done? my preference would be if you 

> would point 

> > to a process that's been done in some other Working Group 

> and say "do 

> > it like that" so i could set the staff folks on the task of getting 

> > something set up in time for it to be completed by the time 

> we release 

> > the Final Report.

> > 

> > thanks,

> > 

> > mikey

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > - - - - - - - - -

> > phone 651-647-6109

> > fax 866-280-2356

> > web  <http://www.haven2.com> http://www.haven2.com

> > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 

> > Google, etc.)

> >

>