[CWG-Stewardship] Support for PTI and PTI board composition in the public comments

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> (Kieren)
> 
>  > One key element from that: the actual numbers (rather than general sense
> > and who) are not very useful because the sample is too small - the level of
> >  response is not there to draw conclusions beyond areas of agreement or
> > disagreement.
> 

Sure. Just to be clear: although counting is inevitable involved, an analysis of public comments received is not intended to be, nor should it be confused with, a public opinion survey that strives for a statistical measures drawn from a representative sample of the entire relevant population. It is impossible for us to attribute any opinions to, or take any guidance from, people who did not comment. 

> Yes, it is hard to quantify the reactions. An other observation is that 41
> Responses is less then the (currently) 133 listed participants.

A roughly 3/1 ratio between participants and comments is actually pretty good unless you expect every single person to comment individually. Many participants in the CWG are grouped under larger stakeholder categories that did comment; e.g., US CIB, ALAC, NCSG , IPC, ISPC, Registry and Registrar constituency, etc. (I should note that I counted the position of registry and registrars twice, because they are two distinct stakeholder groups that filed joint comments. I don't think groups that file joint comments should be penalized in this kind of accounting because they coalesced with other groups.)

Bottom line: we shouldn't fetishize percentages but we do need to discern where various stakeholders stand and what kind of things seem to command some level of agreement and what things don't.