Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

Interesting attempt at polling, but many of the questions really only allow
for binary choices for answers.  I am not sure who drafted the questions for
the informal poll, but the yes/no questions in this poll will lead to
unreliable results.

The first question, for instance, requests that the respondent provide an up
or down on whether the current constituency structure of the DNSO is
functional.  If I answered yes, I might still agree with those who answered
no...that the structure needs change. Hence, the first question will tell us
nothing about what we really need to know and, in fact, might produce
misleading results.  Functionality is a very low threshold.  In fact, I
think it is difficult to argue that the current structure of the DNSO does
not perform some useful subgrouping function (if that is what is meant by
functional). Consequently, I think the first question should have asked
respondents to select one of four choices -- ranging from, perhaps, a)
unrepresentative of stakeholders; b) incapable of consensus building; c)
functional, but needs adjustment ; and d) current constituency structure  is
fine.

 In addition, many of the questions ask about the performance of all of the
constituencies, which I doubt any respondent can answer with first hand
knowledge. I realize that the poll is informal, but I think it is important
to note just how "informal" it is.

Rod


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll


>
> >An informal poll for this working group, using some of  the constituency
> >questions, is at http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p1puu4w_a .Results can be
> >viewed at   http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a
>
> At this point, 9 people have completed the poll. I find these prelim
> results interesting, but hope we get a larger sample of the working group
> (hint, nudge).
>
> -> "Is a constituency structure a functional method for subgrouping in the
> DNSO?"  5 yes, 4 no.
>
> This is a much more even position than I would have thought. The only
other
> question this evenly split regards how or by whom an individuals'
> constituency should be implemented.
>
> On the other hand, there is a near-consensus (all or all but one) on the
> following statements (rephrased from the questions):
>
> The current constituency structure impacts the effectiveness of the DNSO
> and NC negatively.
> The current process rarely or never promotes the development of overall
> community consensus.
> All DNSO interests are not adequately represented in the existing
> constituency groups.
> An individuals' constituency should be created (though nothing resembling
> consensus on how).
> The constituencies should be reformulated (again, nothing resembling
> consensus on how).
>
> Also of interest, no one has been willing to say that the constituencies
> adequately represent their intended members. Nor has anyone been willing
to
> say that all important parts of the Internet community are represented.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
>