Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone call.

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Tijani,

that is what I meant a bout a properly design scientific poll, were a fair 
amount of work goes into designing questions and testing answers to make sure 
that you have a poll that actually asks what you think it does.

These quick polls, it takes weeks and sometimes months to properly design and 
test a poll, always end up like this.

It is actually to Evan's credit that people in the group are only arguing about 
very few questions.

a.

On 22 Oct 2010, at 13:09, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> No Avri, the survey is a very objective way to find the right consensus.
>  
> If the questions were posed in the right manner, I mean if all the elements 
> were included in the question, the result of the survey will necessarily 
> reflect the point of view of the WG members on the issue.
>  
> For example, for ref #2.7(a), the question was:  
> “For-profit enterprises should not be included in the categories receiving 
> aid”. And the answer should be “agreed” or “not agreed”.
>  
> If it was: “needy For-profit enterprises from developing countries should not 
> be included in the categories receiving aid”, I’m sure the result will be the 
> opposite.
>  
> So the problem is not in the survey principle, it’s in how it was done.
>  
> I’m not complaining. I want here to thank Evan for organizing the survey. He 
> took the sentences where there was not consensus, and put them in the survey. 
> With regard to the time constraint, I fully understand that we can do it in 
> this way.
>  
> Last point: Under the pressure of the time constraint, we don’t have to give 
> the board something that is not reflecting the view of the WG members. We 
> need all to be open to any idea and any discussion to reach the needed 
> consensus.
>  
> Thank you for your understanding
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
> Phone : + 216 70 825 231
> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
> Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
> Envoyé : jeudi 21 octobre 2010 20:38
> À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone 
> call.
>  
>  
>  
> On 22 Oct 2010, at 00:18, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>  
> > On 10/21/10 3:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> But we held a poll.
> >
> > Where are the results? Not the summary, but results that show how each WG 
> > member is represented as having indicated a preference?
> >
>  
> Not sure, I think Evan was going to release that.
>  
> but are you claiming we lied?
> or do you just want to try and get people to change their poll?
>  
> and people wonder why i hate unscientific quick polling and think that it 
> causes more problems than it solves.
>  
> a.
>  
>  
> >
> >> On 21 Oct 2010, at 21:28, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On continuity:
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Tijani on the WG's on-list and on-call record is that there 
> >>> was more support for 6 months than for 12 or 36
> >>
> >> on this one the wording on the poll could be seen as ambiguous.
> >> And that is why I asked the question which no one has answered yet.
> >>
> >> Tell does it really make that great a diference between 6 months and 12 
> >> months?
> >>
> >> I understand that there was consensus for less than 36.  but is 6 versus 
> >> 12 a criticial issue?
> >> if so, why?
> >>
> >>
> >>> months.
> >>>
> >>> On eligibility:
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Tijani on the WG's on-list and on-call record is that the 
> >>> opposition to support for entrepreneurs from developing countries who 
> >>> meet the need criterion was very limited.
> >>
> >> On this one, I think the pool was quite clear and I interpret it as people 
> >> who had not spoken up before, spoke up in the poll.
> >>
> >> That is part of running the poll.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>  
>