[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The survey raw data issue

[Sam Lanfranco]

Maxim,

I will happily live with whatever consensus is arrived at here. I am for 
maximum transparency.
I just  suspect that significant disclosure will make surveys redundant 
to the discussions in the meetings.
In any event, the real action, and consensus, happens in the meetings.
The surveys, under any rules, are also an experiment. They may help, or 
hinder, progress in the meetings.
Too much discussion of survey results might look like engagement, but 
may not be progress.

Also, if we go with significant disclosure I may end up with a testable 
hypothesis, and evidence to test it.

Sam


On 1/19/2017 4:08 AM, Maxim Alzoba wrote:
> Hello Sam,
>
> I think we might stick to (3)
> in format of choice between 3
>
> 1. my name and affiliation is Ok to show
> 2. please show only my affiliation (could be group and not a company 
> name_)
> 3 .please do not show any info.
>
> P.s: as an analyst I can say that the persons might be identified by 
> the writing, so I see almost no value in hiding , and since we have
> public records of meetings and we express the same ideas via voice and 
> chat ... it is almost not possible to
> push a particular idea without being identified.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Maxim Alzoba
> Special projects manager,
> International Relations Department,
> FAITID
>
> m. +7 916 6761580
> skype oldfrogger
>
> Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
>
>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 06:35, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net 
>> <mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>> wrote:
>>
>> WG Colleagues,
>>
>> Here are my thoughts on the survey raw data issue under discussion in 
>> the RDS PDP WG. We face four options. They include: (1) no survey raw 
>> data disclosure (but still mean/std. dev. disclosure); (2) full 
>> survey raw data disclosure, (3) limited survey raw data disclosure, 
>> and (4) abandoning use of the survey.
>>
>> No disclosure (1) is the status quo. Full disclosure (2) maximizes 
>> transparency, at the risk of reduced survey participation and with 
>> little benefit over simple WG dialogue.Limited raw data disclosure 
>> (3) is the RDS PDP WG Thick/Thin data challenge, only now with regard 
>> to our survey data fields. The design of a limited disclosure 
>> protocol is beyond the time and resources available to us, and 
>> details beyond mean/std. dev. probably mean a loss of 
>> confidentiality. Small participant size in these surveys means that 
>> disclosure beyond mean/std. dev. makes it harder for responses to 
>> remain confidential. Comments are already less than anonymous since 
>> we know each other’s proclivities and propensities. One does have a 
>> choice to not comment. A permission box [Show my name] is also 
>> problematic, given respondent numbers, since it makes it easier to 
>> identify “no name” respondents.
>>
>> Where do I stand on this? I am for either option (1) the status quo 
>> (no disclosure), or option 4 (no surveys at all). The survey is a 
>> quick aid to the WG dialogue and need not be seen as a binding 
>> measure of consensus. Survey results are not a vote. They are inputs 
>> for the WG dialogue grist mill, inputs that can facilitate the 
>> process of WG consensus. Confidentially poses no problem since the 
>> consensus process is still within the WG dialogue. The Chair of the 
>> WG, and the ICANN staff member, act as survey “scrutineers” and we 
>> should trust them to flag survey participation irregularities.
>>
>> If (1) the status quo (no disclosure) is not acceptable, I am in 
>> favor of (4) no surveys. Limited disclosure (3) is logistically 
>> problematic, and full disclosure (2) offers few benefits over simply 
>> conducting the dialogue within the  RDS PDP WG. To recap, I prefer 
>> either the status quo or no surveys at all. I look forward to other 
>> views on this matter.
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco, npoc/csih
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
  邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170119/09f6d37c/attachment.html>