[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Survey Results Analysis - Part II

[Walid AL-SAQAF]

Thanks Tim for your valuable feedback,

Those are valid points indeed. Now that we had the survey out for the first
time, I can assume that future surveys would be prepared with those
comments in mind and only get better.

Hopefully, the next batch of questions would be less prone to different
interpretations and they are the ones that will contribute most to the
discussion on steps to secure more engagement from NCUC members.

I will add to the final report a paragraph indicating some of your points
so readers would understand the study's limitations.

Sincerely,

Walid

------

Walid Al-Saqaf, PhD
Postdoc, Department of Media Studies
Stockholm University - Sweden

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Timothe Litt <litt at acm.org> wrote:

> On 29-Apr-15 18:35, Walid AL-SAQAF wrote:
> >
> > In this second part, I analysed the level of engagement of members in
> > ICANN and NCUC meetings and tried to see if representing an
> > organization made any difference compared to representing just
> > yourself as an individual.
> >
> Walid,
>
> It's great that you're trying to make sense of the survey.  Some
> observations:
>
> I'd be careful about reading too much into some of the data, as the
> survey questions lent themselves to varying interpretations.
>
> "Are you paid to represent your organization?" For most salaried people,
> the response is likely "no", meaning "it's part of my job, or at least
> acknowledged as valuable by my management".  It's really unusual to
> represent an organization without being compensated, though the
> compensation may not be explicit.  Of course, if you're an unaffiliated
> volunteer, you may not be salaried.  But ordinarily unaffiliated
> volunteers aren't entrusted with representing an organization, at least
> to any entity that's "important".  If it's a small organization with no
> paid staff, things may be different.
>
> A more illuminating question might have been: "If you attended an ICANN
> meeting in person, did your organization (or anyone else) pay/reimburse
> all or part of your expenses?" Or, "Are you employed by the organization
> that you represent?"  Or, "What, if any, benefit does your employer
> derive from the organization that you represent?"  Or, "Does your
> employer permit you to use work time for ICANN/NCUC business?"
>
> The nature of "representing an organization" is also slippery as a
> discriminant.  Yes, we have the formal letters from an organization
> appointing a representative.  However, some members don't represent an
> organization, but derive their income from ICANN issues.  E.g.
> researchers, attorneys who practice in this space, students.    There's
> nothing wrong with that.  Many are passionate about the issues and bring
> valuable perspectives.  But they're a different kind of "individual
> member" from an individual domain name registrant.  For the former, the
> costs of participation can be budgeted as an income-producing expense,
> whether the funds are personal or from some other source.  For the
> latter, they are a discretionary personal expense that produces no income.
>
> For those of us unaffiliated with any organization, who truly represent
> only ourselves, a more interesting question would be whether expense
> limits participation.  For myself, it's great that we have some funds to
> support travel from "undeveloped" countries.  I wouldn't think of
> applying for them, as I live in the US.  On paper, I could afford to
> attend.  On the other hand, would I spend $thousands of personal funds
> and several days of travel to attend an ICANN meeting?  No.  Would I
> have spent corporate funds to attend?  Sometimes - but then I would have
> represented the corporation.  If one were within commuting distance,
> would I attend?  If the agenda was of interest.  Does remote monitoring
> of a meeting work as an alternative?  Yes, to some extent.  Does remote
> participation work?  No.  Does that leave me unrepresented?  Yes.
>
> In my experience with professional meetings, remote participation only
> works after enough in-person meetings have happened to form personal
> relationships.  The most useful interactions happen in small groups, not
> in formal settings.  So your result that remote participation is higher
> among those who have attended in-person is not surprising.
>
> "Networking" can be interpreted as either a technical or a social skill.
>
> There is probably some difference between the skills people have, and
> those that they admit to in this context.   The former informs
> perspective.  The latter is what they might volunteer to do for ncuc.
>
> Some of these observations may be worth a follow-up survey.  But in any
> case, you should consider them as you attempt to interpret the data.
> Since the questions weren't asked, you may make some skewed inferences
> from the data that you do have.
>
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20150430/7533992d/attachment-0002.html>