[Membership-affairs] [NCUC-EC] point on the membership survey

[Walid AL-SAQAF]

Great suggestions. Thanks Bill.

I'll do the suggested changes and come back to the list for a new round of
feedback.

Sincerely,

Walid
On Feb 19, 2015 5:54 PM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Thanks for this.  I’ve not had time to focus on this until now so have a
> couple questions/suggestions.
>
> Two general points:
>
> *Personally, I would allow a more time for people to respond than ten
> days.  A lot of folks are really busy right now, and more generally many
> members don’t seem to read all mail frequently, which is part of why every
> year we allow multiple two week blocs for the stages of the election and
> send multiple reminders to vote etc.  What’s the rush?
>
> *It seems unusual to me to describe some questions on a survey as
> ‘mandatory,’ doesn’t it sound a little like an exam for undergrads?   Why
> not say there’s some we’d really like your feedback on and then others that
> are optional, Id’ think people would get the distinction…More generally,
> I’m not sure I understand the decision rule about which is which. For ex,
> I’d think the replies to Q6-8 would be really important to know and affect
> how I’d read their other answers, but these are labeled optional.
>
> On the individual questions:
>
> Q4: I strongly suspect the number of members who are paid to do NCUC work
> is zero, but I guess we could include this for humor.  What does
> ‘Sonstiges’ mean?  And the bits of German at the end...
>
> Q13: Shouldn’t it be "What DID you hope to achieve by joining NCUC/NCSG?”
> rather than “do”?
>
> Q15: Regarding the second option: posing use of the NCSG wiki as an
> alternative to the NCUC mail list seems confusing because the survey is for
> NCUC members, not NCSG members, and they wouldn’t get any NCUC info from
> the NCSG wiki.  If you want to frame it as a choice between platforms for
> updates, wouldn’t it make sense to say ncuc.org instead?  Second, "to get
> for updates” needs a copy edit.
>
> Q16: The list mixes current groups with older ones like JAS but not MAPO,
> not sure why.  In any event, could you please include the Cross Community
> Working Group on Internet Governance as an option, a number of us are in
> there.  Ditto the CCWG on Accountability.  I'd list the informal CC group
> on human rights as well, a number of us have been putting in time there.
> More generally, it might be sensible to separately group the GNSO groups
> and the CCWGs.
>
> Q18: Neither the bylaws nor event planning teams nor the lists created for
> them are operational.  Similarly, there is no NCUC privacy group, and to be
> honest I didn’t know a mail list had been created.  I’d suggested such a
> group last year when about twenty people said they were interested in
> working on privacy, but then others objected that any privacy work had to
> be done at the SG level (where no privacy group was formed, but whatever).
> Listing these will artificially increase the number of “not engaged”
> responses and present a distorted picture.  I would remove these options,
> and if we (re)create groups to perform these functions in the future and
> fire up the lists we can put fresh information on the website.
>
> Q19: "My English is not my mother tongue and think that others may not
> understand me” might read better as "English is not my mother tongue and I
> think that others may not understand me.”
>
> Q20: What about establishing a members’ space on the website where people
> would have their pix, URLs, bios, links to writings, whatever, would that
> be useful?  Apparently we can’t do this at
> http://www.ncuc.org/about/members/ directly but we could have another
> space to create more of a sense of community/identity etc?  BTW two copy
> edits: It’d be better to say “contribute to” instead of “contribute for”
> better engagement.  And "A word of welcome and encouragement from veterans
> could come a long way” probably would be better as “would go a long way.”
>  FWIW people do get welcome messages when they join.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for all your work on this, it’s really great and
> should prove very helpful going forward.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Walid AL-SAQAF <wsaqaf at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Sure thing Bill. Here it is again: http://goo.gl/XlwyQL
>
> In the introduction, I have added Maryam's name and email as the contact
> person within ICANN as she will be sending out the questionnaire to all
> NCUC members.
>
> I've also added a deadline until the end of February so we could close it
> and start analyzing the results afterwords.
>
> Let me know any final thoughts/comments before asking Maryam to distribute
> it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Walid
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/membership-affairs/attachments/20150220/51e60038/attachment-0002.html>