Consultation Results 11/12/00

Findings from questionnaire

Overview

Due to criticism and un-manageability of the societies email lists the council resolved (through the Methods of Electronic Participation working party) to consult with the members about the best use of these lists.

A questionnaire was devised, with feedback from members, and posted onto the societies web site. Members were given two weeks to fill-in the questionnaire. After the cut-off date of the 4 ^th December 2000 several "vocal" list members who had not submitted a response were contacted personally and given the opportunity to response to the questionnaire.

A total of 36 responses with received.

Key: "Y" = Yes
"N" = No
"X" = No answer given to the question

The answers were as follows:

Section 1 - Personal Details

1-1

Are you a member of ISOCNZ?

Y=86.1%

N=13.9%

X=0%

1-2

Are you currently subscribed to the ISOCNZ-L List (or read through newsgroup)?

Y=75.0%

N=22.2%

X=02.8%

1-3

Are you currently subscribed to the MEMBERS List?

Y=80.6%

N=16.7%,

X=02.7%

Section 2 - ISOCNZ-L List

2-1	Should this list be terminated?	Y=19.4% N=77.8% X=02.8%
2-2	Should an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) be applied to this list? (NB: This would probably require breaking the link to the nz.org.isocnz news group)	Y=36.1% N=52.8% X=11.1%
2-3	If 2-2 is Yes, who should 'police' the AUP?	X=34.3%
	a) Self policed	a=37.1%
	b) ISOCNZ Chair	B=08.6%
	c) Council Nominated Person	c=00.0%
	d) List Nominated Person	d=08.6%
	e) Other (please state) what is it all about? Are we starting rubbish again? Do we want to fire from the m <message truncated, member advised> not applicable Nobody Option d) but you probably need more than one person (in case some ppl are away	e=11.4%
2-4	If 2-2 is Yes, how should the AUP be devised?	x=34.3 %
	a) Use current AUP	a=34.3%
	b) Devised by council	b=11.4%
	c) Devised and agreed by list members	c=20.0%
2-5	Should this list auto cross post to the nz.org.isocnz news group?	x=16.7%
	a) no gateway	a=25.0%
	b) bi-directional gateway	b=44.4%
	c) gateway from list to newsgroup only	c=11.1%
	d) gateway from newsgroup to list only	d=02.8%
2-6	Should the ISOCNZ-L list (and potentially nz.org.isocnz) be renamed to distance it from the society? (The implication is that the list would not be monitored in any way)	Y=36.1% N=50.0% X=13.9%
2-7	General Comments: I believe "we" must develop a culture where abusive email is shunned. The society has pretensions to represent all internet users ... it should be publicly visible and hear what the people who it claims to represent are saying. I would rename it public-discuss. Also I believe it is wrong to only ask for feedback on 2-3 and 2-4 from those who vote yes to 2-2. One may prefer no moderation but still have valid views on how it should work if there is moderation. Should be renamed and a agreed AUP should be enforced. List should send to gateway only. USEnet is dead.... long live email! The ISOCNZ should do nothing to narrow the scope of the opinons the members are exposed to. Discusions on ISOCNZ-L often covers issues which directly impact non-member internet users. you need a "don't care" option in 2-6. I don't care. Actually, renaming the list away from ISOCNZ I suppose wouldn't be a bad thing - ISOCNZ members already have a mailing list to use for discussing things to do with ISOCNZ. Anyone can currently subscribe to the ISOCNZ-L mailing list, or post to the newsgroup so it could be renamed and treated as a free for all list for people to talk about domain related issues to do with NZ with posts to it not necessarily having to relate to ISOCNZ. We do already have nz.comp which could be used for that but it generates a lot of non-domain related traffic so having a specific group for that could be useful to some people. The list is potentially useful to allow non members to communicate with members List is not needed for general discussion. Why not limit ISOCNZ discusion to members%3F Main need for general discussion could be DNS issues since ISOCNZ governs in which case introduce ISOCNZ-DNS-discuss with strict AUP. Basically, I am happy with the status quo. I don't care about 2-5 but I assume some people prefer a gateway. I believe there should be one list and only one list. IT is for the members to discuss anything relevant to ISOCNZ society and internet in NZ. eg upcoming law, comments about ISPs who are not too good, pending law changes etc I believe there should be one list and only one list. IT is for the members to discuss anything relevant to ISOCNZ society and internet in NZ! eg upcoming law, comments about ISPs who are not too good, pending law changes etc I'm pretty sure I'm not a member of that list, but where it exists it should certainly be open, and it should remain gatewayed, and AUP should be recommended, enforcment and usefulness do not sit well together You can't police manners, nor should we try. ISOCNZ-L is just a waste of time imho. Leave a newsgroup where people can talk about the society (i?d change the name though) and those who want to discuss ISOCNZ business with members should become members themselves. This also avoids the problem of trying, heroically but not very viably, to moderate or AUP a totally public list. I believe it is a service that ISOCNZ should provide to the internet community since we aim to support this. However I believe we should provide it more as an arms-length service with the only support being to maintain its existence for community use. I believe that the -l list should just be wound up%2C and no replacement instituted. There are plenty of other fora for people to chatter on without ISOCNZ spending resources on another one

Section 3 - MEMBERS List

3-1	Should an AUP be applied to this list?	Y=75.0% N=16.7% X=08.3%
3-2	If 3-1 is Yes, who should 'police' the AUP?	x=11.1%
	a) Self policed	a=33.3%
	b) ISOCNZ Chair	b=08.3%
	c) Council Nominated Person	c=16.7%
	d) List Nominated Person	d=22.2%
	e) Other (please state) List and Council approved person not applicable group of three selected by the list	e=08.3%
3-3	If 3-1 is Yes, how should the AUP be devised?	x=11.2%
	a) Use current AUP	a=27.8%
	b) Devised by council	b=08.3%
	c) Devised and agreed by list members	c=52.8%
3-4	Should new members be automatically subscribed?	X=19.4% Y=50.0% N=30.6%
3-5	Should this list be opened to non-members?	x=08.3%
	a) No	a=61.2%
	b) Yes, Read Only	b=22.2%
	c) Yes, Full Access	c=08.3%
3-6	If MEMBERS is open to non-members, should ISOCNZ-L & MEMBERS lists be merged into one list?	X=38.9% Y=22.2% N=38.9%
3-7	General Comments I support auto subscription for new members but allow people to unsubscribe and make apparent on memb form people will be subscribed My answer to 3-6 is No if members list is read only for non members but yes if it is full access. I think there should be one, only, members only, list, not gated to a newsgroup. ISOCNZ-members should be for the discusion of issues relating to ICONZ. ISOCNZ-l (which I think should be renamed) is for discussion of non-ISOCNZ issues I would not want to see a merger of the two lists. One is for members, one is not. Members should also be given the option to join the members mailing list only if they want to due to the traffic that can be generated on the list. The purpose of the different mailing lists should be clearly defined in new member packs. It is useful to know the status of the people on the list. Members list should be reserved for discusion of matters of concern only to the membership. Internet issues should go to isocnz-l Traffic must be low volume, pertinent and relatively flame free to encourage members to stay on board. That should motivate decisions about the list. A members list is just that, it shouldn't be a secret, but there should be membership criterion. AUP should be drafted by a Councillor and then subject to consultation on the list, after which someone the list trusts to be neutral should enforce this. I?d say we?ll find it very hard to find a volunteer though.. Members and List should be kept strictly separate. ISOCNZ can own and care about Members. ISOCNZ can provide but take little active part in List, though many would value the monitoring and community expression value that this can provide

Section 4 - ANNOUNCE List

4-1	Should active membership depend on subscription to this list? (i.e. un-subscribing from this list would be considered resigning from the society)	Y=30.6% N=69.4% X=00.0%
4-2	If 4-1 is No, should there be another "compulsory" list that membership must subscribe to? (Providing minimal information to members. E.g. AGM notification etc)	Y=16.7% N=50.0% X=33.3%
4-3	If active membership does not depend on subscription to the ANNOUCE list, should new members be automatically subscribed to the ANNOUCE list? (This would need to be stated on the membership form)	Y=66.7% N=19.4% X=13.9%
4-4	Should this list be opened to non-members?	x=02.8%
	a) No	a=50.0 %
	b) Yes, Read Only	b=47.2 %
	c) Yes, Full Access	c=00.0%
4-5	General Comments We should have two announce lists. Members-announce would be compulsory and have absolute minimal constitutionally required traffic. public-announce would be voluntary and open to the public and be for notices etc of public interest on current issues etc Send copy of each announcement to ISOCNZ-L/nz.org.isocnz . And let members unsubscribe from anounce list It?s useful to have an announcement list. It?s necessary to have a contact list. If they?re the same, that reduces maintenance overhead. There should be a series of announce lists for different purposes. Only the minimal legal information should be posted to the compulsory one. Since becoming a member I have read everything that comes through the lists, however I have never posted to them. I find many of the post interesting however when I get bored I will un-subscribe. New members should at least see what is coming through the lists without have to go through the process of joining them, as it is easier to un-subscribe if you don't like it. People should not be subscribed to a mailing list without their express permission. People should not require mailing list membership to maintain membership of the society. it's an announce list. read only and full access are the same thing. announce is read only already I think it is important for members to be auto sent ISOCNZ announcements - heaps cheaper than posting to people. They are after all joining a society so should receive at least ISOCNZ admin announcements. ASwamping them with traffic from the members list isn't a good idea though. Open to non-members as a way of informing them of our activities and hopefully encouraging them to join. I don't buy the argument about members having to be suscribed to a list so that the Society can inform them of the AGM. The announce list should be an option at joining time. An address, very like the paper mail address should be taken, and used as the paper mail address is, to notify members of important news. Yes, this looks like compulsory membership of a list, but it's not a mailing list, it's the membership list.%0aAgain it should be open to read by anyone. Need some way to reach the members, so membership should be compulsory. There should be instructions on each announcement on how to set the list to "no mail"

Section 5 - COUNCIL List

5-1	Should this list be open to members (Read Only)?	Y=50.0% N=41.7% X=08.3%
5-1A	Should this list be open to members (Read Only)? Councillor Votes Only	Y=30.0% N=60.0% X=10.0%
5-1B	Should this list be open to members (Read Only)? Non-councillor Votes Only	Y=60.0% N=32.0% X=08.0%
5-2	Should the list archive be available to members?	Y=55.6% N=38.9% X=05.5%
5-3	General Comments: If one does this though one should have a council-in-cmte list. This list would function exactly the same as at a face to face meeting. People need to move on the public council list that they wish to go into cmte and why and Council votes on this on the public council list. Once a majority have voted to go into cmte then the in cmte list may be used until the issue being discussed is resolved. The result of any vote on the in cmte list should be reported to the public Council list. Why Not While that is a good idea (IMHO), policing it so only members can read the archieve is easier said than done Council needs a working area and needs to write it's wn reports to members regularly as Minutes are not enough This should should just be for council members to discuss issues amongst themselves. Archive available from date opened. Opening should be on trial. If councillors are abused or expected to spend time responding to frivolous questions on members-list derived from council list then council list should be closed. Keep it closed for confidential discussions Why stir this up, to no evident purpose? Council should in theory be able to fight in private before going public. Council must have somewhere to discuss things "in committee" or they will simply go underground

Section 6 - GENERAL

6-1	Assuming an AUP applies, what restrictions should be incurred for a breach?	x=08.3%
	a) First breach - warning, Second breach - 2 week suspension, Third breach - 4 week suspension and so on at two additional weeks per breach	a=38.9%
	b) First breach - 2 week suspension, Second breach - 4 week suspension, Third breach - cancellation of ISOCNZ membership.	b=08.3%
	c) Simple two week suspension for each breach	c=13.9%
	d) Something else? Comments First breach - warning, second and subsequent breaches - simple two week suspension. Public censoring on the list by the President Public Flogging... :-) I think it should be whatever the list agrees to, which is record in advance. First three - warning, 72 hrs suspension each subsequent breach. You only need the latter as a cooling off time, as almost all breaches (other than spaming) take place during heated debate. I think everyone posting to the lists are big enough not to have to hide behind an AUP. First breach 2 week suspension. Second breach permanent removal from the list. ISOCNZ membership should not be denied to non-members of the list. no AUPs should be necessary. a or b - depends on seriousness of breach - spoofing etc instant loss of membership My view is that it should be left to other members to get at the offending party. As a but doubling at each repitition, !i.e. 0, 2, 4, 8, 16 weeks. Punishment and the nature of the policy are intimately related. If it is self-ploiced, there is no 'penalty' for a breach except the wrath of your peers. shouldn't this be decision by people who form the AUP%3F by preference I would prefer Keep it simple and understandable. that's why I like option c First = warning, Second = 2 week susp, Third = 4 week susp, Fourth = expulsion from the society	d=30.6%
6-2	Should the list be advised of any AUP breach and penalty?	Y=88.9% N=02.8% X=08.3%
6-3	Should the automatically enforced cross-posting restriction be removed and replaced with a simple policy to discourage cross-posting?	Y=61.1% N=30.6% X=08.3%
6-4	What improvements to the list structure would you suggest? Detailed in other boxes. public-annoucne and public-discuss plus members-announce and members-discuss. Also issue focused mailing lists should be encouraged as specific issues spout up. A person that 'directs' discussion to an outcome is needed. they then post the draft outcome, its dicussed then we move on... would give the list(s) a purpose Lists are a bugger to work with but they?re the best we have at present Create topical lists. The SRS list worked really well. ISOCNZ should learn from this experience. Having two general lists doesn't help much. one public list for members and non-members alike. Full public access to council lists and archives, read-only. Just as answered in my answers above. Abandon the lists altogether and simply run a members news list. This provides automatic threading and is less intrusive. A weekly email to advise members of new threads would be useful. Leave it alone and get on with real stuff %3A-) I think new members who are automatically subscribed to it should have it explained to them what happens etc. We probably lost more people by the auto sub without explanation, especially some of those who signed up for netforum and had no idea why they were subbed to the isocnz list. Regular, monthly%3F, reminders of subscription, unsub, purpose, particularly for low traffic groups... Perhaps more use of public lists by WG?s if they are so inclined. A little more monitoring/threading would be helpful to maintain the lines of debate. Topics can get lost
6-5	General Comments Thank you for the consultation. I hope we will see the summary of results with opportunity to comment on them before any decisions are recommended. I personally don?t distinguish between the members and the l lists. Perhaps I should! Perhaps the members list could take the role of the annouce list. It seems to me that if one joins ISocNZ then one should monitor the flow on the current members list - ie. it should be compulsory. Open the council list to read only! The ISOCNZ should do nothing to narrow the scope of the opinons the members are exposed to. I like the list name appearing in the subject line - it helps with filtering rules I find it _extremely_ ironic that a survey concerning electronic particpation goes out of its way to make particpation in the survey difficult despite being offered alternatives that would make it easy. Ditch those annoying monthly email reminders that I get. Been subscribed to over 10 ISOCNZ or Domainz mailing lists means I'm gaurenteed to have a full inbox at the beginning of each month. Ummm just glad to have been given the opportunity to let you know my thoughts thanks for doing this questionnaire Use a better form next time, I had to type this out longhand

Sections

Personal tools