Update to RDS PDP polling process
Dear all, Based on the additional input received on the mailing list, the leadership team further considered WG member arguments for and against changing our polling process to publish WG member name in future poll results. While these concerns were originally raised in the context of a request for raw data, the dialog has evolved into a debate about whether WG member name should be published to promote transparency and accountability in WG proceedings. Some WG members have indicated they prefer to participate in polls anonymously, but the majority of WG members appear to prefer poll responses be explicitly associated with WG member names. Absent a compelling argument for anonymity, the leadership team has concluded that the following process change should be applied to future polls.
From here onwards, our polls will no longer collect IP addresses from respondents. However, WG member names will be both collected and included in published poll results. The timestamps that are generated when responses are submitted will also appear in published poll results. It will be clearly stated in all future polls that, by submitting a response, you are granting permission for your entire response - including WG member name and response timestamp - to be included in poll results.
As previously indicated, poll results will henceforth be made available to the WG in two forms: A Survey Monkey-generated summary and an exported XLS file. However, with the above changes, it will no longer be necessary to delete columns from the XLS file (or process that export in any other way) prior to posting. While some WG members may not be fully comfortable with inclusion of WG names and timestamps in future poll results, the leadership team believes this decision reflects the majority desire for complete transparency in all WG deliberations- including these informal polls - and aligns with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines principles of transparency and accountability. As stated previously, member responses to these informal polls are assumed to be provided in their individual capacity and not as representative of any groups to which they belong. As always, any WG member who disagrees with the leadership team's decision is welcome to post a counter-argument to this list, but we hope that this approach represents a fair balance between the different viewpoints expressed and allows us to return our focus to the substance of our deliberations. Best regards, Lisa
Great news! Thanks Stephanie Perrin On 2017-02-01 00:30, Lisa Phifer wrote:
Dear all,
Based on the additional input received on the mailing list, the leadership team further considered WG member arguments for and against changing our polling process to publish WG member name in future poll results.
While these concerns were originally raised in the context of a request for raw data, the dialog has evolved into a debate about whether WG member name should be published to promote transparency and accountability in WG proceedings. Some WG members have indicated they prefer to participate in polls anonymously, but the majority of WG members appear to prefer poll responses be explicitly associated with WG member names. Absent a compelling argument for anonymity, the leadership team has concluded that the following process change should be applied to future polls.
From here onwards, our polls will no longer collect IP addresses from respondents. However, WG member names will be both collected and included in published poll results. The timestamps that are generated when responses are submitted will also appear in published poll results. It will be clearly stated in all future polls that, by submitting a response, you are granting permission for your entire response – including WG member name and response timestamp – to be included in poll results.
As previously indicated, poll results will henceforth be made available to the WG in two forms: A Survey Monkey-generated summary and an exported XLS file. However, with the above changes, it will no longer be necessary to delete columns from the XLS file (or process that export in any other way) prior to posting.
While some WG members may not be fully comfortable with inclusion of WG names and timestamps in future poll results, the leadership team believes this decision reflects the majority desire for complete transparency in all WG deliberations– including these informal polls – and aligns with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines principles of transparency and accountability. As stated previously, member responses to these informal polls are assumed to be provided in their individual capacity and not as representative of any groups to which they belong.
As always, any WG member who disagrees with the leadership team’s decision is welcome to post a counter-argument to this list, but we hope that this approach represents a fair balance between the different viewpoints expressed and allows us to return our focus to the substance of our deliberations.
Best regards,
Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Awesome. This is great. Daniel K. ᐧ Regards Nanghaka Daniel K. Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Council Member - FOSSFA / Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) Skype: daniel.nanghaka ----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * ----------------------------------------- On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Great news! Thanks Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-02-01 00:30, Lisa Phifer wrote:
Dear all,
Based on the additional input received on the mailing list, the leadership team further considered WG member arguments for and against changing our polling process to publish WG member name in future poll results.
While these concerns were originally raised in the context of a request for raw data, the dialog has evolved into a debate about whether WG member name should be published to promote transparency and accountability in WG proceedings. Some WG members have indicated they prefer to participate in polls anonymously, but the majority of WG members appear to prefer poll responses be explicitly associated with WG member names. Absent a compelling argument for anonymity, the leadership team has concluded that the following process change should be applied to future polls.
From here onwards, our polls will no longer collect IP addresses from respondents. However, WG member names will be both collected and included in published poll results. The timestamps that are generated when responses are submitted will also appear in published poll results. It will be clearly stated in all future polls that, by submitting a response, you are granting permission for your entire response – including WG member name and response timestamp – to be included in poll results.
As previously indicated, poll results will henceforth be made available to the WG in two forms: A Survey Monkey-generated summary and an exported XLS file. However, with the above changes, it will no longer be necessary to delete columns from the XLS file (or process that export in any other way) prior to posting.
While some WG members may not be fully comfortable with inclusion of WG names and timestamps in future poll results, the leadership team believes this decision reflects the majority desire for complete transparency in all WG deliberations– including these informal polls – and aligns with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines principles of transparency and accountability. As stated previously, member responses to these informal polls are assumed to be provided in their individual capacity and not as representative of any groups to which they belong.
As always, any WG member who disagrees with the leadership team’s decision is welcome to post a counter-argument to this list, but we hope that this approach represents a fair balance between the different viewpoints expressed and allows us to return our focus to the substance of our deliberations.
Best regards,
Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Good news . Also it helps persons with not so strong memory (like me) to identify own not so smart responses :) -- Maxim Alzoba, Sent from my phone. Please excuse my typos. -------- Original Message -------- From: DANIEL NANGHAKA <dndannang@gmail.com> Sent: 1 February 2017 12:01:11 GMT+03:00 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Update to RDS PDP polling process Awesome. This is great. Daniel K. ᐧ Regards Nanghaka Daniel K. Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Council Member - FOSSFA / Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) Skype: daniel.nanghaka ----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * ----------------------------------------- On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Great news! Thanks Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-02-01 00:30, Lisa Phifer wrote:
Dear all,
Based on the additional input received on the mailing list, the leadership team further considered WG member arguments for and against changing our polling process to publish WG member name in future poll results.
While these concerns were originally raised in the context of a request for raw data, the dialog has evolved into a debate about whether WG member name should be published to promote transparency and accountability in WG proceedings. Some WG members have indicated they prefer to participate in polls anonymously, but the majority of WG members appear to prefer poll responses be explicitly associated with WG member names. Absent a compelling argument for anonymity, the leadership team has concluded that the following process change should be applied to future polls.
From here onwards, our polls will no longer collect IP addresses from respondents. However, WG member names will be both collected and included in published poll results. The timestamps that are generated when responses are submitted will also appear in published poll results. It will be clearly stated in all future polls that, by submitting a response, you are granting permission for your entire response – including WG member name and response timestamp – to be included in poll results.
As previously indicated, poll results will henceforth be made available to the WG in two forms: A Survey Monkey-generated summary and an exported XLS file. However, with the above changes, it will no longer be necessary to delete columns from the XLS file (or process that export in any other way) prior to posting.
While some WG members may not be fully comfortable with inclusion of WG names and timestamps in future poll results, the leadership team believes this decision reflects the majority desire for complete transparency in all WG deliberations– including these informal polls – and aligns with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines principles of transparency and accountability. As stated previously, member responses to these informal polls are assumed to be provided in their individual capacity and not as representative of any groups to which they belong.
As always, any WG member who disagrees with the leadership team’s decision is welcome to post a counter-argument to this list, but we hope that this approach represents a fair balance between the different viewpoints expressed and allows us to return our focus to the substance of our deliberations.
Best regards,
Lisa
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
This is an excellent development. Thank you to the leadership team for taking our feedback onboard! - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Update to RDS PDP polling process Local Time: 1 February 2017 5:30 AM UTC Time: 1 February 2017 05:30 From: lisa@corecom.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Dear all, Based on the additional input received on the mailing list, the leadership team further considered WG member arguments for and against changing our polling process to publish WG member name in future poll results. While these concerns were originally raised in the context of a request for raw data, the dialog has evolved into a debate about whether WG member name should be published to promote transparency and accountability in WG proceedings. Some WG members have indicated they prefer to participate in polls anonymously, but the majority of WG members appear to prefer poll responses be explicitly associated with WG member names. Absent a compelling argument for anonymity, the leadership team has concluded that the following process change should be applied to future polls. From here onwards, our polls will no longer collect IP addresses from respondents. However, WG member names will be both collected and included in published poll results. The timestamps that are generated when responses are submitted will also appear in published poll results. It will be clearly stated in all future polls that, by submitting a response, you are granting permission for your entire response – including WG member name and response timestamp – to be included in poll results. As previously indicated, poll results will henceforth be made available to the WG in two forms: A Survey Monkey-generated summary and an exported XLS file. However, with the above changes, it will no longer be necessary to delete columns from the XLS file (or process that export in any other way) prior to posting. While some WG members may not be fully comfortable with inclusion of WG names and timestamps in future poll results, the leadership team believes this decision reflects the majority desire for complete transparency in all WG deliberations– including these informal polls – and aligns with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines principles of transparency and accountability. As stated previously, member responses to these informal polls are assumed to be provided in their individual capacity and not as representative of any groups to which they belong. As always, any WG member who disagrees with the leadership team’s decision is welcome to post a counter-argument to this list, but we hope that this approach represents a fair balance between the different viewpoints expressed and allows us to return our focus to the substance of our deliberations. Best regards, Lisa
+1 From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 6:54 AM To: lisa@corecom.com Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Update to RDS PDP polling process This is an excellent development. Thank you to the leadership team for taking our feedback onboard! - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Update to RDS PDP polling process Local Time: 1 February 2017 5:30 AM UTC Time: 1 February 2017 05:30 From: lisa@corecom.com<mailto:lisa@corecom.com> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Dear all, Based on the additional input received on the mailing list, the leadership team further considered WG member arguments for and against changing our polling process to publish WG member name in future poll results. While these concerns were originally raised in the context of a request for raw data, the dialog has evolved into a debate about whether WG member name should be published to promote transparency and accountability in WG proceedings. Some WG members have indicated they prefer to participate in polls anonymously, but the majority of WG members appear to prefer poll responses be explicitly associated with WG member names. Absent a compelling argument for anonymity, the leadership team has concluded that the following process change should be applied to future polls. From here onwards, our polls will no longer collect IP addresses from respondents. However, WG member names will be both collected and included in published poll results. The timestamps that are generated when responses are submitted will also appear in published poll results. It will be clearly stated in all future polls that, by submitting a response, you are granting permission for your entire response – including WG member name and response timestamp – to be included in poll results. As previously indicated, poll results will henceforth be made available to the WG in two forms: A Survey Monkey-generated summary and an exported XLS file. However, with the above changes, it will no longer be necessary to delete columns from the XLS file (or process that export in any other way) prior to posting. While some WG members may not be fully comfortable with inclusion of WG names and timestamps in future poll results, the leadership team believes this decision reflects the majority desire for complete transparency in all WG deliberations– including these informal polls – and aligns with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines principles of transparency and accountability. As stated previously, member responses to these informal polls are assumed to be provided in their individual capacity and not as representative of any groups to which they belong. As always, any WG member who disagrees with the leadership team’s decision is welcome to post a counter-argument to this list, but we hope that this approach represents a fair balance between the different viewpoints expressed and allows us to return our focus to the substance of our deliberations. Best regards, Lisa
participants (6)
-
Ayden Férdeline -
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Lisa Phifer -
Mark Svancarek -
Maxim Alzoba -
Stephanie Perrin