<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I very much appreciate Sam’s thoughtful analysis. It is exactly the kind of input that will be useful as the WG considers whether any raw poll data should be provided. As we announced at the end of this
week’s WG meeting, we will be discussing that on our agenda next week.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I want to reinforce some points that Sam makes below: “</span>Survey results are not a vote. They are inputs for the WG dialogue grist mill, inputs that can facilitate the process of WG consensus.<span style="color:windowtext">”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:windowtext">Also, I want to encourage the good discussion about this topic that is happening on this list in advance of next week’s call. We will continue that discussion in our meeting next
week so advance discussion should facilitate that agenda item. And for those who may not be able to attend next week’s meeting, it is especially important for you to share your thoughts in before the meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:windowtext">Chuck<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam@lanfranco.net]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] The [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] survey raw data issue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:normal">WG Colleagues,
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Sam Lanfranco, npoc/csih<br>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>