[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

Ayden

I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that manner.

Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it.

Regards

Michele


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Date: Sunday 29 January 2017 at 17:35
To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data

With respect to the leadership team, this is not raw data.

Raw data — which is what has been requested — is output taken straight from the source, and published unedited. What you are looking to release is processed data, scrubbed of the IP addresses, time stamps, and respondent names. This may sound like semantics but there is a very significant difference between the two.

If it is agreed that we want processed data published (and I do not, I would like the raw data published), we need to have a discussion on the degree of processing, and choices being made during this process, by those who have access to the Survey Monkey account. For instance, does the processing consist merely of removing three columns, or is the data analysed and duplicate responses removed? Are duplicate responses included, but we do not know because the three columns that identify them as being duplicates have been removed? Or is this a case of the leadership team and ICANN staff having privileged access to information when we would all find it useful? These are rhetorical questions and I am not insinuating anything here — I'm simply saying it is impossible for those of us who do not have access to the raw data in the Survey Monkey account to learn more about the underlying data, and that's the very reason why it has been requested.

I would like to see the raw data published. If any data elements are so sensitive that we cannot release them to all working group members (like respondent names), we should not be collecting them in the first place. I certainly see no reason to collect time stamps or IP addresses. If Survey Monkey does not provide a robust-enough platform to administer surveys without collecting this information, then we should be using a different platform.

Thank you,

Ayden Férdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data
Local Time: 29 January 2017 1:56 AM
UTC Time: 29 January 2017 01:56
From: lisa at corecom.com
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org

Dear all,
Earlier this month, a request was made to publish “raw data” for WG member polls. The leadership team examined Survey Monkey poll data exports that might satisfy this request and realized that all contained fields that may pose a privacy concern to some: WG member name, IP address, and timestamps. To take into consideration WG member wishes for both privacy and transparency, our 18 January poll sought input on concerns (if any) on personal data that you would prefer not be included in raw data that might be published for future WG polls.
During our 24 January call, the request to publish raw data and WG member responses were discussed. Most objected to including the IP address of the device used to take a poll; one-third objected to including WG member name and/or PDFs of individual poll responses.  After lengthy discussion, several WG members indicated that an explanation of the problem to be solved by publishing raw data was needed before deciding to include these or other new fields in published results.
Noting the WG’s desire to focus on substantive deliberation at this time, the leadership team proposes the following next steps to resolve the original request for raw data.

(1)    To be responsive to both the request for raw data and WG member concerns about fields currently contained in Survey Monkey exports, we will post an XLS export of all poll data gathered without the IP address, WG member name, and timestamp columns which will be deleted from the exported XLS prior to posting. This raw data XLS will be published in addition to our usual aggregate result summary PDF for all future polls.



(2)    Anyone who wishes may propose to the WG mailing list more data they would like to see added to future published poll results, along with rationale about the problem that adding that data would address.  Any such proposals will be discussed and refined primarily via the WG email list (and perhaps polling) to focus WG call time on deliberation of charter questions and key concepts.
While (1) may end up being sufficient, (2) allows for further WG discussion about additional steps.
Best regards,
Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170130/3a208f00/attachment.html>