[ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process

[Hannigan, Martin]

Isn't discuss supposed to be the members list? That would mean that the general public isn't there. 

PPML does seem to be the right venue.

Best,

-M<



On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:12 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/1/2014 8:35 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting
>>> the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list
>>> such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is
>>> created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers
>>> from another list?
>> 
>> I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as
>> -discuss or -consult) could be appropriate.  I'm not opposed to a new
>> separate list for this discussion.  We have also discussed if a global
>> list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. 
> 
> Not PPML - acknowledged.  Do you have preference between -discuss 
> (which is members-only), -consult, or a new list for this purpose?
> 
> Also, are you recommending creation of a global list for this purpose,
> or use of an existing global list?  If so, which one? Would use of such
> a list be instead of using an arin list, or in addition to?
> 
>> Could ARIN describe how it intends to publicize the survey to ensure
>> that the feedback gathered represents a significant portion of the
>> Internet community which is interested in participating in this process?
> 
> Announcing to arin-announce, followed by forwarding to PPML and NANOG 
> mailing lists.
> 
> Would you recommend another approach?
> 
>> ...
>> While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a
>> survey to improve response rate.  Having multi-bullet statements about
>> which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like
>> the best way to approach getting feedback from the community.  I'd
>> suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond
>> independently. 
>> 
>> What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here?  Yes/No?  Or a
>> range strongly disagree to strongly agree?  With or without a neutral
>> center response?
> 
> Yes/No
> 
> Is another format preferable? Should a "no opinion" option be included?
> 
>>> Survey Question 3 –Does this community feel that it has no position, per
>>> se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that
>>> DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA
>>> transition)
>>> 
>> This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions.  I
>> think this community would have a very different opinion on
>> accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community
>> did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community.
> 
> Do you recommend dropping this question, or prefer different phrasing?
> 
>> The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question)
>> to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form
>> feedback.
> 
> Acknowledged.  We will add a question 4 (Do you have any other 
> comments or feedback) with free-form text reply field.
> 
> Excellent feedback - Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20141002/e35f6d2f/attachment.sig>