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

[Gomes, Chuck]

I don’t like being too picky about terminology but in this case I think it may be important.  The polls that we are doing are really  not surveys in the more formal sense of the term.  They certainly are not intended to be statistically valid and we definitely do not allow sufficient time for that to be the case.



The primary objective of the polls are two-fold: 1) confirm conclusions reached in meetings with those who participated; 2) provide an easy way for those who did not participate to contribute to the conclusions reached.  What we are trying to do is get a reasonably good sense of where WG members are with regard to specific issues and doing it in a way that is done fairly quickly so our work does not drag out too long.



Chuck



From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam at lanfranco.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 5:13 AM
To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The survey raw data issue



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<mailto: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/fd8fdcb8/attachment.html>