ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2 survey - clearing up confusion

  • To: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2 survey - clearing up confusion
  • From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:17:28 -0500
  • Cc: "'gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' (E-mail)" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "<liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 2DOW2tf <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <s0354316.088@gwia201.syr.edu>
  • References: <s0354316.088@gwia201.syr.edu>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Milton:

Actually, the intention of the task force to allow responses from the general community, constituency representatives, as well as the constituencies as a whole in the form of more coordinated responses. In fact, the cover sheet on the questionnaire (approved by the task force) is quite explicit in this regard:

Although these questions have been distributed to each of the
GNSO constituencies, the task force would be glad to receive responses
from any individuals or organizations that have a knowledge or interest
regarding this matter.  Responses that are not made on behalf of a
constituency should include an indication of the author's affiliation
and interest in Whois privacy.

The data gathering that we are doing is qualitative as opposed to quantitative, so sheer number of responses should not be a primary consideration by the analysis teams. Additionally, we have asked respondents to identify their affiliation and interest in the use of the Whois data, which should make it possible for team members to place responses in "buckets" relating to particular GNSO constituencies if they feel it is appropriate to do so.


On Feb 19, 2004, at 11:13 PM, Milton Mueller wrote:

Niklas and I met by telephone today as part of data analysis "Team 3".

An ambiguity developed as we discussed the data collection effort.
I was under the impression that the survey was intended for GNSO
constituencies only. However, there have been some suggestions that
we are expecting to get data from any and every Internet user.
And indeed I see some responses from random Internet users already
in the results.

I see from the message from the GNSO Secretariat circulating the
survey that my initial impression was correct. (see below)
The survey is intended for constituencies only.

"GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/16/04 12:48PM >>>
One of the milestones of this Task Force is to determine whether the data
which is collected and disclosed at present should be changed. To be able to
arrive at a informed decision we are asking all GNSO Constituencies for
guidance on their use of the current data fields.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/questionnaire-tf2-all -06feb04.shtml

This greatly simplifies our task and also eliminates the potential for
bias in the data collection. If we are polling GNSO constituencies,
then our population of respondents is exactly 7 (counting ALAC)
and we can reasonably expect to get a response from every member
of that population, making our data perfectly representative of
the population.

Any attempt to broaden the intended population would of course
result in a much larger population to be sampled, and given the short
response time frame, lack of adequate publicity, and inability to use
scientific sampling techniques the results would suffer from a
selection bias so severe as to make the results completely useless
from a statistical point of view.

In analyzing the results, I will then insist upon analyzing only the
constituency responses.


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