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

[Andrew Dul]

On 10/2/2014 9:12 AM, John Curran 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?

I withdraw my suggestion to use -discuss, I forgot that list is not open
to all. 

As for other lists, I don't have a strong opinion, but would prefer that
it not be on PPML so that the policy discussions aren't distracted by
this discussion.

If you forced me to rank order my preference: global-list, new-list,
-consult, ppml

>
> 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?
I don't know which existing global list might be appropriate.

I am subscribed to the 4 other RIR ICG lists now, and it seems redundant
to have the same discussion in 5 different places, but maybe I'm in the
minority and others would prefer regional discussions.

> 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?
This plan seems appropriate.
>
>> ...
>> 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?

I personally find the answer set "Strongly
Disagree/Disagree/Agree/Strongly Agree" to be the most useful to me when
reviewing survey results.  The "No Opinion" option to me is not
answering the question.

>
>>> 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?
Right now, I'd recommend rephrasing or dropping the question.  Perhaps
it will become clearer to me next week after some additional discussion
what a rephrasing might look like.

>> 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
>
>
>