[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Fri Dec 16 10:59:13 UTC 2016

We have to do now a thorough examination if our tentative conclusion is right: ICANN's establishment in the U.S. - California law - is the best. International organisations do this assessment all the time, even as  a strong tendency to keep the seat can be noticed.
Thus: the more feedback we get the better; hopefully also encourage some academic research on this topic.
Best, Erich Schweighofer
________________________________
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org]" im Auftrag von "Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Dezember 2016 11:46
An: Perez Galindo, Rafael
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Dear Jorge, Rafael
These are non valid excuse not to publish Q4 as our US colleagues do not want to even get some comments on that relation.
We then have to also object to send out Qs 1-3.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed
No questions go out or all questions are published.
The community are being captured by a group of people belonging to certain country
Forgetting the rest of the entire community
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Dec 2016, at 10:27, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA at minetad.es<mailto:RPEREZGA at minetad.es>> wrote:

+1 Jorge.

Milton, if one of your arguments for deleting Q4 is lack of time of the respondents, I hope you realize how weak these kind of claims are, and how they do not support your position.

We should never be afraid of compiling information. After 2 years of working together, this group has shown to be mature enough to be able to weed out, once the answers have been received.

Rafael

De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Enviado el: jueves, 15 de diciembre de 2016 23:23
Para: milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>; mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>; mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:06 AM
To: mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community