[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Dec 16 07:41:56 UTC 2016


Kavouss,

Thank you for your opinion.

Greg

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg
> There was no agreement to consider the review as First Reading
> It was sent back to reconsider the matter and resubmit it for first
> Reading
> We have to have a fresh look
> No questions or all questions
> This  is the issue on the table
> Once we agree on that then there nay be some editing in Q 1 as I indicated
> " deletion of business and privacy"
>   Pls kindly listen to us also and NOT to yourself
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 00:05, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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/20161216/54a2e497/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list