Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DRAFT version of "atoms" survey

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

On Jun 14, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:

> Hello
> 
> I answered all the questions as I quickly went thought the questions to 
> evaluate the poll. There are some pointed questions, but there some design 
> problems. If the answer to a particular question is "does not apply to my 
> approach", then the choices related to willingness to compromise become 
> difficult to choose. 

hi Siva,

i'm hoping that the new version of the consensus questions helps with this...

-- I'm willing to discuss a wide range of options
-- I'm willing to discuss, but only within a narrow range of options
-- I'm not willing to discuss, this is a critical position for me

so, if you say "this doesn't apply to my approach" you can then indicate how 
flexible you are when it comes to discussing approaches that DO include that 
item.

> 
> The survey does not include questions on harms and the approach to harms. 
> Some basic questions could have been included.

yep, this is just peeling the headings off the matrix -- the poll was already 
so long that i left (for another day) the topics of harms and addressing them.  
i think those topics will be featured in much more depth *after* Brussels.

thanks,

mikey


> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca 
> <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Mikey,
> 
> Very useful survey.  I think it would be beneficial to break out the .brand
> answers into separate questions similar to the separate treatment for
> .community.
> 
> I also think the .brand answers could have been genericized for the
> questions they were contained in...for example:  "is it ok for a [not
> .brand] registry to select just one or two registrars to distribute its
> tld?"
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:14 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] DRAFT version of "atoms" survey
> 
> 
> i've crunched out a draft version of an "atoms" survey based on the call
> today.  i'm pasting a link to this draft survey that just lets you look at
> the survey, but won't record your answers.
> 
>        http://is.gd/cPh37  (it's shortened from a huge link that comes out
> of SurveyMonkey)
> 
> did i mention "draft" enough times?  i would much appreciate a few people
> taking a moment to run through this draft survey and offer ideas to
> clarify/improve it.  i'll switch from "draft" to "real-survey" mode at the
> end of the day tomorrow after working any ideas/improvements into it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone   651-647-6109
> fax             866-280-2356
> web     www.haven2.com
> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> etc.)
> 
> 
> 

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