[governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
Rui Correia
correia.rui at gmail.com
Fri Jan 1 13:55:32 EST 2010
I like "coalate" - halfway between "coalesce" and "collate". Which is what
we do most of the time ...
Rui
2010/1/1 Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> 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 <http://igcaucus.org/> regarding
> possible structural reforms for the Internet <http://www.intgovforum.org/>"
> 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 I*S *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<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=fouadbajwa@gmail.com>
> ]
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@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<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jeremy@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<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@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<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@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<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@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<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@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
>
>
--
________________________________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100101/5e98d8d8/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