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.
>
>
>
>