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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

done...  last version excludes the earlier duplicate


On Jul 20, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> And preferably keep the correct (last?) one for each of the duplicates.  Alan
> 
> At 20/07/2010 03:29 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> We also need to take out duplicates, which I am not sure has been fully 
>> done. Â 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" < randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 9:58 am
>> To: "'Roberto Gaetano'" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'"
>> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <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: 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'; 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: 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'; 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" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:03 pm
>> > To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <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: 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: 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
>> > > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>> > > Google, etc.)
>> > >
>> > 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)