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.