ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [dow1tf] FW: Revised Survey

  • To: <dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow1tf] FW: Revised Survey
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:11:35 -0500
  • Cc: <rosemann@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

First, some questions:

Do you think it is necessary to educate recipients of this survey
on the structure of ICANN? If this came into your mailbox on
a busy day, would you read it or delete it? Is it necessary
for our respondents to know the difference between 
ICANN and the GNSO? Do they need to know that to answer
the questions? Will knowing that make them more likely to 
answer them? 

If someone doesn't have any idea what Port 43 is,
will our explanation make them able to answer the survey?
If they do know what it is, will they be able to stop laughing 
long enough to answer it? Should we explain what a "Whois 
proxy" is, too?


Question 8 is poorly phrased. It should ask "what" other source
would they use, not "whether" they would be able to use
another source. There is no doubt that other sources are 
available. The question is what the effect will be. Options a) 
and b) make no sense unless the question is changed in the way 
I suggest. As it currently reads, the options should be "yes" or 
"no." But if we want real data, Q 8 cannot be a "yes/no" 
question, because it permits biased respondents to manipulate 
the data. Those who want to retain current modes of access 
have an incentive to tell us they have no alternative. We can 
avoid this by asking what other source they would use and finding 
out how expensive or inconvenient it is.

Question 9: I believe the word jhustify should be used.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>