[CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis

Bernard Turcotte turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 19:28:55 UTC 2016


All,

Malcolm confirmed his issue was around all the N/A's in the summary sheets
in columns D, E and F.

This is to be expected.  As the overarching title of these three columns
states "If no survey response - staff assessment".

As such if there was a response given in the survey monkey these columns
are not filled in and contain N/A (almost 57% of responses used the survey).

Additionally if the survey monkey form was not used and a respondent did
not comment on a recommendation those columns will also contain N/A (there
were quite a few of these also).

Hope this clears up any misconceptions.

Cheers.

B.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> I'm also a bit confused by the prevalence of "N/A".
>
> There seem to be a great many cases where the respondent writes "We
> support this recommendation and ... (think/stress X,Y,Z)" where the item
> is marked as "N/A" in the support/disagreement columns.
>
> But it looks as though surveymonkey and direct replies may have been
> counted separately.
>
> Nor is it at all clear on what basis some replies have been picked out
> for "analysis", but not others.
>
> Perhaps the staff could give more of an explanation as to how this was
> constructed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Malcolm.
>
> On 06/01/2016 16:44, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
> > Alice,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for this. The Heritage Foundation’s opposition to full GAC
> > participation in the empowered community was not noted in the Rec 1
> > analysis. As stated in our comment, we think that GAC should be strictly
> > advisory.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Rec 7 analysis, I’m concerned that our position may be misunderstood.
> > We support including DIDP in an appeals process, but we are very much
> > against restricting it to the engagement, escalation, and enforcement
> > staircase because that process is dependent on the Empowered Community.
> > DIDP appeals need to be accessible to everyone, not just the SOACs, and
> > appeals should not require SOAC approval at any threshold. This may
> > require moving DIDP appeals to the request for reconsideration process.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Rec 11, the one sentence summary gives the impression that we support
> > Rec 11. We do not and offered specific proposals on how to change the
> > text to address our concerns, which were not included in the Rec 11
> > analysis.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> > Brett
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > BrettSchaefer
> > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> > Security and Foreign Policy
> > The Heritage Foundation
> > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> > Washington, DC 20002
> > 202-608-6097
> > heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
> >
> > *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Alice Jansen
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:04 AM
> > *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment
> > summary/analysis
> >
> >
> >
> > _On behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs_
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Attached to this email you will find a staff produced summary and
> > analysis of the public comments received on our Draft Proposal.
> >
> > In preparation for our January discussions, we encourage you to read the
> > document as well as comments available for full reference
> > at:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/
> .
> > Note: a /download all/ page is available
> > at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
> >
> > Please note that we cannot convert the spreadsheet into a PDF, the tabs
> > and spreadsheet being too large. Thank you for your understanding.
> >
> > Staff will post the summary on the public forum box on Friday, 8 January
> > -
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en
> .
> > In the meantime, it is located on your wiki
> > at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Mathieu, Thomas, León
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>        Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160106/59b1345a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list