I had asked that it be put up on the web (where Rafik originally directed folks) but I have a copy from our briefing in Singapore so here it is.  Should you wish to comment on the methodology, I would suggest you address your comments to staff, either Margie Milam or Denise Michel.  Any advice you would care to give on methodology would be appreciated, at least by the three of us in the EWG who have been the risk and impact assessment chorus…..I wanted a full two day risk workshop, because in my view this kind of transition needs something that in-depth because of all the contingencies.  However, there never seems to be enough time.  I am also calling for ICANN to do something like a regulatory impact assessment (RIAS) when they make quasi-regulatory decisions, I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
Kind regards, Stephanie  



On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Andrew A. Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Wow, what a BIASED survey!
> 
> I could use this as an example for a postgrad class on survey creation 
> showing my students how NOT to do it to get unbiased results, including the 
> following egregious problems:
> 
> mixed sets of answers between providing information and providing access to 
> the information of others;
> lots of answers saying how hard privacy rules will make it for information 
> holders and those seeking information, few on how hard it will be to maintain 
> privacy
> 
> In all, the whole surveyis skewed towards the interests of 
> registrars/registers and not registrees.
> 
> Hmm, who would I ask for an easier to access copy of the whole survey 8not 
> the answers, just the survey)? This is ripe for a protocol/practice paper on 
> information ethics.
> 
> -- 
> Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/