ICANN survey: Ebiquity reputational audit

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Timothee,

thanks for the comments, in fact I asked the representative from the
consulting company about the non mention of non-commercial in their report
and  waiting for responses.
in meantime, I am wondering if this is related to the fact that  ICANN
executive is/were focused in the beginning to get and engage more business
participation such having roundtables or having dedicated ICANN staff .the
same focus was about working on "reputation". I am also wondering how
findings were used .

for NCSG we expressed many times concerns about the outreach with CS from
ICANN, let's say the efforts are still in infancy for now.
I recall responding to the survey, some did for sure. checking the stats,
it seems that the 3rd party didn't dismiss responses for other groups.
and yes,  members should respond to the survey.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2014-09-21 21:12 GMT+09:00 Timothe Litt <litt at acm.org>:

> Thanks Rafik for providing the last audit document.
>
> I scanned the "full audit report" from the last iteration.  NCSG isn't
> even on the scorecard.  Given the energy and passion in this group, this
> is an extremely disappointing and discouraging result.
>
> > among stakeholders representing: government/policymakers, academics,
> > business & commercial interests, journalists, national & international
> > non-government and non-commercial entities and members of the
> > technical community
>
> Amazing that aside from this sentence, non-commercial interests don't
> appear anywhere in the analysis.
>
> Not even to say that a statistically significant sample wasn't obtained.
>
> Under "strategic priorities", the consultant recommends "Engaging
> Stakeholders: regional outside western, cultivate relationships with
> governments".
>
> The "Stakeholder engagement" addendum doesn't mention non-commercial
> organizations as a category of interest, just some passing references to
> "Tech community, academics/thought leaders & NGOs".  Hardly covering the
> NCSG constituencies... (And of course, individuals holding domain names
> are, as usual, completely ignored.)
>
> Seems to me that we have a serious problem - if NCSG (or at least,
> "non-commercial interests") wasn't even worth putting on the scorecard,
> either
>
> a) we just talk to ourselves; or
> b) the ICANN initiators/funders of the survey don't care; or
> c) the survey company disregarded its instructions and ICANN didn't notice.
>
> Perhaps exacerbated by NCSG members not participating in the survey?
>
> In any case, this seems to indicate a strategic failure of NCSG's
> efforts to be visible and effective...
>
> I've taken this year's on-line survey, and it does ask for affiliation -
> non-commercial is an option.
>
> We ought to focus on getting our membership to respond to the survey.
> And ask some very pointed questions of ourselves and the survey
> analysts  if the resulting report ignores us again.
>
> Talking to ourselves may be entertaining, but it isn't productive.
>
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140921/309db1f8/attachment.htm>