[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Dec 15 23:05:26 UTC 2016


The CCWG Plenary had a first reading of each of the 4 questions and the
Preamble.  These were discussed, and some comments were received.  The
results of the poll were also distributed and discussed.  No decisions were
made.

Presumably, there will be a second reading at the next CCWG Plenary meeting
on January 11.

Greg

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:22 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Dear Milton
>
>
>
> I feel the supposed dangers of the fourth question are being exaggerated –
> we are mature enough to distinguish well-reasoned opinions from mere
> hypothesis. And respondents are also well-prepared to deal with 4 instead
> of 3 questions – I do not see any serious danger of overburdening them
> because of that. We could make clear that respondents only have to answer
> what they deem relevant.
>
>
>
> Without wanting to repeat myself: to exclude a question that was supported
> by a slight majority in the poll indicates some fear on what could back in
> terms of substance – not because it would be useless, but because some in
> the group would not like the arguments being made.
>
>
>
> I’m of the opinion that if we have good arguments and continue with a
> rational conversation there is no reason for such a fear whatsoever.
>
>
>
> BTW: did the CCWG Plenary decide on this? Or give any direction? I would
> not like to spend time on a topic already decided…
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu]
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2016 23:13
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Betreff:* RE: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
> <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>
> *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
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37
> *À :* Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert;
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161215/feff1488/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list