http://www.esomar.org/about-esomar.php

http://www.casro.org/?page=AboutCASRO

Professional societies for commercial market/business research companies.

Looking at the survey now...

Dan




At 11:39 AM -0400 9/21/14, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.syr.edu id
>s8LFdRAF017966
>
>1.  I totally agree.
>2.  Thanks for the reminder, I filled out the survey and have a couple of
>gripes:
>
>I have no clue who ESOMAR and CASRO are, they should spell it out
>I dont find it appropriate to ask people if they want to break their
>anonymity right after you give them the opportunity to rant.  The unwary,
>seized with a behaviourally-explicable (I know, it is not a word but it
>should be) opportunity to rant and be noticed, will break the anonymity
>promised at the beginning of the survey.
>It is an odd survey, but everyone should fill it out and be heard.
>cheers Stephanie
>
>On 2014-09-21, 8:12, Timothe Litt wrote:
>
>>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.