[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Thu Dec 15 23:18:59 UTC 2016

I am not in agreement with Milton.
50% OF THE PARTICIPANTS were from one or two countries whose very interest
is to reject Q4 whereas the remaining were from all other entities which
have overwhelming majority in respect of number of countries 7 territories.
I ask Grec to publish the names of those who opposed Q4 before deciding
what is the criteria to count overwhelming either those from one single or
two countries or from others.
We have been discussing Global Multistakeholder and NOT Sub-sub regional
Multistakeholder.
Kavouss

2016-12-16 0:05 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> 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-communit
>> y 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161216/f85bf5ac/attachment-0001.html>