[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Thu Dec 15 22:12:36 UTC 2016


Jorge
Question 4 clearly does not have consensus support from the group. What DOES has clear overwhelming consensus is: a) Questions 1-3, and b) support for sending out the first 3 questions if 4 does not have sufficient support.

Worse, Q4 basically defeats the purpose of the entire fact-finding mission.
Our first 3 questions are short, clear and simple and factual in terms of what is needed to answer them
The 4th question is worded in a wooly and confusion manner and is asking for opinions, not facts.
You have to understand that the time and attention span of survey respondents is limited. If you throw a long, ambiguous and unclear question at them you get fewer responses. And by asking for opinions rather than facts, Q4 taints the rest of the questions and we are likely to get more opinions and fewer facts as a result.

Let’s bring this to a close and send out the factual questions by themselves. If people want to initiate another process to send out a completely different kind of question, let it be done separately.

--MM

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:06 AM
To: mathieu.weill at afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Dear CCWG

I apologize for not being able to attend today’s call due to other prior engagements.

Let me add that I’m in support of sending out all 4 questions prepared in the Jurisdiction Group.

I feel that at this point of our discussions, where we are trying to gather as many facts, experiences and reasoned opinions as possible which are relevant for the influence that ICANN’s jurisdiction has on its operations and accountability mechanisms, we should not rule out questions (as question nr. 4) that have been considered important by an important part of the Subgroup (in fact, by a slight majority of it).

At later stages we may determine whether ingoing responses regarding that question are factual or are mere opinions without a well-founded basis.

At this moment I think that excluding relevant questions could give rise to wrong perceptions and could potentially prevent us from knowing relevant experiences/assessments covered only by question nr. 4.

@staff: please note these comments in the relevant part of the call.

Thanks and
Best regards

Jorge



Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mathieu Weill
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2016 08:44
An: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Dear Colleagues,

On behalf of the jurisdiction subgroup rapporteurs, please find attached two documents that will be discussed in the upcoming plenary.

Best
Mathieu

De : Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37
À : Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>
Objet : Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

​Co-Chairs and Staff:

The Jurisdiction Subgroup is considering distributing a questionnaire. The first attachment shows the proposed preamble (introduction to the questions) and each of the questions proposed in the Subgroup.

The second attachment shows the results of a poll taken in the Subgroup to get a sense of support in the group for each of the questions.

These documents should be sent to the CCWG Plenary for discussion.

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161215/1ab3c823/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list