FYI everyone. Only 11 people responded, unfortunately, but while the sample size is too small to be meaningful it is quite varied.


Best,

-Michael

 

From: DC [mailto:dc-bounces@intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:47 PM
To: dc@intgovforum.org
Subject: [DC] 2016 Issue Survey Results: Now Available Online

 

Dear All,

For ease of reference, the Secretariat has published all the survey results in graphical format: http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/2016-dynamic-coalition-output-documents-surveys

Many thanks again to Jeremy!!!

Best,
Eleonora



From:        Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org>
To:        "dc@intgovforum.org" <dc@intgovforum.org>
Date:        09/01/2017 23:15
Subject:        [DC] 2016 issue survey results and suggestion for 2017
Sent by:        "DC" <dc-bounces@intgovforum.org>




Today is one month after the IGF, and I have just collected the results from the issue surveys which were held open until now.  These are attached as CSV spreadsheets.  If any DC would like their results in graphical format instead, please let me know and I can do this for you.

Despite better efforts at publicising the surveys and encouraging people to complete them, the participation rate was still very low, indicating that more work is required.  The most responses to any survey was 25, for "Connecting the Unconnected".  The least, perhaps surprisingly, was for "Internet Rights and Principles", with only 4.  Most of the other DCs had around 10 responses.  These do not include the paper surveys, for which the response rate was even more dismal (averaging less than 1), and which I haven't even bothered reporting.

Factors that may have produced such a low response rate is that there was no link to the surveys on the front page of the IGF website during the IGF week or following, and that there was no email about the survey sent to all IGF participants.  On the other hand the link was tweeted from the official IGF Twitter account, and the placement of our booth in the IGF Village was quite good.  So I would have expected a better response rate from the outreach efforts that were taken.

Recommendations that I made in a previous email to this list (excuse the repetition) were:

  • We could ask people to do the surveys as part of IGF online registration process
  • We must have a permanent link to the survey on the IGF website - the link is very hard to find right now
  • We could somehow "gamify" the survey by awarding points or stickers, or making it part of an IGF quest
  • We should place a word limit on questions - some were too lengthy this year
  • We should also strictly enforce the five question limit - one DC had ten questions this year
  • There seemed to be some confusion about the shifts at the booth, with some slots unattended, and others where there were more people than expected
  • Rather than a static booth which most people don't bother visiting, we could have volunteers roving around with iPads to get responses to the surveys (like the Imagining the Internet people did with their camera)

But a more fundamental rethink of the approach may be required.  In my view, there is a good match between the DCs' needs, and the Deliberative Polling work that Stanford University has piloted in the last two IGFs.  This is because we have the material for people to deliberate on, but we don't have an effective method to foster broad deliberation and feedback.  The Deliberative Polling team has the opposite problem: they have a method, but they don't have ready-made materials to employ it on.  Merging these two projects seems to me like a perfect match.

If we were to do this, then in tandem, we should seek support from a donor or foundation to fund this work, and should also secure the MAG's commitment to properly integrate this work into the IGF as a mainstream, supported, resourced and promoted IGF activity.  (This in turn will require that we have a strong advocate within the MAG.)

It will require a lot of additional effort and commitment, but clearly the current approach is not working, so I think we have to do something.  Is anyone else on board with these ambitious plans for 2017?
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm@eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122[attachment "Accessibility and Disability.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Blockchain Technologies.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Child Online Safety.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Community Connectivity.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Core Internet Values.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Gender and Internet Governance.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Connecting the Unconnected.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Internet and Climate Change.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Internet of Things.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Internet Rights and Principles.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Net Neutrality.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "Public Access in Libraries.csv" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI/UNOG/GVA/UNO] _______________________________________________
DC mailing list
DC@intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org