[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

[parminder]

On Friday 16 December 2016 03:42 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Jorge
>
> Question 4 clearly does not have consensus support from the group.
>

It is really surprising that to send out a question, simply to seek
information, we need a full consensus! It is not enough that a majority
of those responding think that such a question is necessary and
important -- and not stupid , wooly, confused, etc, as Milton, on his
own authority, insists that we should conclude.

Pl make a distinction between taking a decision, that is exclusive of
its alternatives, and just seeking information, which is not. There is
heaven of a difference between the two.  It is extremely unfortunate
that there are such efforts to gag even a simply process of inquiry.... 

> 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 4^th 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.
>

We can mention that respondents can answer just those questions that
they may want to and not necessarily all.

> 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.
>

We have gone over 'what are facts' many times, lets not keep arguing
about it.

parminder
>
>  
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161216/4c81c201/attachment.html>