NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] ICM Registry and Deceptive Dot-Ex-Ex-Ex Polls
ICM Registry and Deceptive Dot-Ex-Ex-Ex Polls
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000730.html
Greetings. One of the techniques that ICM Registry has been using to
try demonstrate public demand for a dot-ex-ex-ex top level domain
(TLD) has been touting various "poll" results ( http://bit.ly/d8FBGe
[Lauren's Blog] ). Right now they're pushing a new CNN "poll" that
seems to show an amazing 83% approval rate ( http://bit.ly/dBh4sV
[ICM Registry] ).
But wait a second. What are we actually talking about here? Turns
out that the CNN "poll" wasn't a scientific poll at all -- merely a
scientifically worthless "self-selected" online poll. Statistical
value and meaning: virtually nil.
ICM also promotes other magazine and newspaper polls over the years
that gave similar lopsided numbers. It's unclear from their
statements whether any or all of those were also self-selected polls,
but it appears quite possible. Way back in 2004, ICM hired Lombardo
Consulting to poll 1000 people on the topic (1K is indeed a typical
national scientific poll size), and got similar results.
But even aside from issues of self-selection, the key to polling is of
course the nature of the questions. Remember "How to Lie with
Statistics"? Still a classic ... [As always, I've substituted
"dot-ex-ex-ex" below to avoid e-mail blocking problems]:
CNN: Do you think pornographic websites should have their own
"dot-ex-ex-ex" domain?
Business Week: Should purveyors of porn get their own domain?
Huntington Herald Dispatch: Would creating dot-ex-ex-ex keep Internet
users from accidentally stumbling upon porn sites?
And finally, Lombardo: If those who run the Internet could assist in
preventing child pornography and make the Internet safer for children
and families by creating a dot-ex-ex-ex Internet address, would you
support this?
It's difficult to imagine a more intellectually dishonest set of
questions. Leaving aside loaded words like "purveyors" -- the
questions appear to obviously suggest that all targeted sites (Only
professional? Also amateur? Just U.S. or worldwide?) would be somehow
*limited* exclusively to the dot-ex-ex-ex domain.
And it appears (from what I can determine so far at least) that no
significant mention was made of the fact that the proposal includes no
mechanism to force such sites to only reside in dot-ex-ex-ex (via
oppressive "domain ghettoization" legislation or the like) -- which
would certainly be quite appropriately subject to immense litigation
battles ( http://bit.ly/bwleYG [PFIR] ). I wonder how these poll
participants (self-selected or not) would have responded if it was
made very clear that dot-ex-ex-ex was in *addition* to existing
(e.g. dot-com) domain names?
The Lombardo question seems the most egregious, making completely
unsupported claims about making the Internet safer and assisting in
the prevention of c-porn. The latter is particularly ludicrous
because c-porn is already illegal and no legitimate sources for such
materials exist on any site or in any TLD.
In other words, the polling data being promoted by ICM Registry is
misleading and biased, therefore statistically worthless -- and the
quintessential essence of unmitigated bull.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein