RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Graph for Report

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It’s unfortunate that Milton chooses to publish VI WG work products and 
pontificate on them when they are in flux, but that notwithstanding, a simpler 
chart, as Roberto suggests allows reader to slice and dice how they want.  As 
has been pointed out many times, this poll is clearly not definitive in any 
way.  Several active members to the list did not get their votes in and with a 
vote here or there the whole picture changes.  While one could say that Free 
Trade has more votes than all others (if you count the column in discussion) it 
is more correct to say that we have three proposals that are all relatively 
close in scoring with no clear and absolute winners or losers.  Again, this 
interim report is intended to give the community some sense as to where things 
are and the chart as recommended by our co-chair does that.

 

Thanks,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

  _____  

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:14 PM
To: Ron Andruff; 'Roberto Gaetano'; 'Tim Ruiz'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Graph for Report

 

I actually disagree with that approach and believe that if we have the graph at 
all, the aggregate is probably one of the most important columns. Since in the 
event of no consensus, ICANN may choose a proposal that the most can live with 
(even if not the most ideal for anyone). 

 

 I also think I need to rehash my ice cream analogy since Milton already posted 
the results on his website.

 

Milton on his website states conclusions that more people favor liberalization 
(“Free trade”) than the status quo or restrictions (“RACK+, JN2”).  Although 
the number of people favoring the one proposal may have been more than others: 
(RESTATED IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM)

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 ☺ [END OF ORIGINAL 
POST]

 

 

 

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 Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:53 PM
To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; 'Tim Ruiz'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Graph for Report

 

I support that Roberto.  Indeed, that column (favor + could live with) is not 
necessary.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:29 PM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] polling -- picking up the pieces

 

Yes, that was also what I had in mind, although I would not have aggregated "In 
Favour" with "Could live with", leaving rather the individual categories 
without aggregation. Aggregation can be done by hand by different people, as I 
am sure that there are different ways to lump votes together.

May I ass that the "Did not vote" is easy to calculate, as it is the total 
number of members (which is known) minus the people who have voted.

This, of course, once we have solved the issues of double voting, which we need 
to do anyway.

Cheers,

Roberto

 

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 17:44
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.)

> >

>