[governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
Eric Dierker
cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Fri Jan 1 12:35:10 EST 2010
Clearly the questions tell us more than the answers ever will. Hence in a court of law they are disfavored as "leading" - (with exceptions for disabilities, experts and hostiles{funny they lump those 3 together})
So for discussion and debate the questions are well framed. For collection of raw insightful(not inciteful) data they are skewed. So do we want a survey that reflects existing consensus or one that leads us into debate that will ultimately show a future overview?
I suggest we shorten it. Make it more concise. Label each question # and ask for that for future discussion subject lines and compile as we go. Anticipate a late february date for a new survey to crystalize consensus with a new "just the fact of opinion" then circulate and poll. Good to remember that it should not be for us but for others to understand us.
Perhaps the coolest thing of this would be that next time a "paper" position is asked for on a given area -- we do not rush to provide a paper but rather coalate our already existing data. I think Gingers' forsight in this regard is invaluable.
--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 5:10 AM
To be "nerdy" about this...
I think that the q'aire is a well-intentioned idea but really quite misleading except as a possible means for sensitizing the non-informed concerning IGF issues and even there it has some serious flaws.
The problem with the q'aire is that it isn't clear what it's purpose is. The q'aire states that "this survey is intended to gauge the position of members of the Internet Governance Caucus regarding possible structural reforms for the Internet " however, virtually all of the questions are structured in a format so as to elicit the opinions of the responder as to what the current situation within the IGF IS rather than what it OUGHT TO BE in the opinion of the responder.
Unless one is doing a survey of the current level of knowledge of the responder the results really aren't of much value at all (and its hard to know why the level of knowledge concerning the IGF among the responders from the IGC would be of anything other than peripheral academic interest..). It wouldn't take that much to change the questions around so as to elicit opinions (which might be interesting) but otherwise...
Best,
Mike (whose basic training was as a sociologist...
-----Original Message-----From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:54 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Fouad Bajwa; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque
Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
I can see all the points made, but I quite liked the survey. I hope that this advice is taken and the survey resubmitted to us masses.
--- On Mon, 12/28/09, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
From: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 1:16 PM
Jeremy,
Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before you ask lots of people to complete it.
My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early feedback, then post again.
Lee
________________________________________
From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque
Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
Hi Jeremy,
Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run
through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may
say to share.:
1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted
to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed
to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a
specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be
restricted to pre-defined answers.
2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ?
sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to
find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in
general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these
with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read
the background of this statement?
3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of
MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't
representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual
consensus to the IGF secretariat.
Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the
process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for
renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three
member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups
than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures
after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then
forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General
to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions
have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be
clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly
detailed with the names of the nominated.
Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating
multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests
of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I
practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a
representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and
intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the
employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC
should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC
interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more
improvement.
These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should
first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey
to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few
weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC
statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed
amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that
we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which
you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account
as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into
them.
I hope these suggestions are helpful.
Best Regards and Season's Greetings
Fouad
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it!
>
> As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey
> that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we
> might choose to put forward as a caucus.
> You can find the online version
> at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it
> up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it). Participation
> is voluntary and anonymous.
> I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that
> you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses. Be as
> pragmatic as you wish to be. Even so, for some questions, there may be more
> than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the
> best answer. If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in
> your response.
> Please complete your response by 10 January 2010. Following that, I will
> work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that
> emerges from the survey. I will post this to the list, and after a
> discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it.
> Many thanks in anticipation of your responses!
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100101/6cc3c46d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list