[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL)

Steve Crocker steve.crocker at icann.org
Mon Jan 5 21:50:12 UTC 2015

Jonathan, et al,

I sat down to respond to this survey with the intention of entering the responses I had previewed for you a few days ago.  I had not fully realized during the discussions over the past few days that in addition to having structurally defective questions, there wouldn’t be any way to enter commentary instead of or in addition to the multiple choices offered.  This isn’t acceptable.  As I pointed out quite vigorously in the discussions over the past few days, the questions include hypothesis that aren’t acceptable to me and perhaps others.  This creates a logical paradox with respect to attempting to answer each question.  The questions are generally of the form, “Assuming hypothesis H, e.g. the existence of the MRT, do you agree or disagree with detail D, e.g. terms of the members should be staggered?”  The only possible choices for a person with my views are either Strongly Disagree or No Response.  However, each of these is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently than intended.  Would a response of Strongly Disagree be interpreted as meaning I think the terms should not be staggered instead of what I really mean, i.e. I strongly disagree with the embedded assumption?  The alternative of No Response is equally problematic because it’s likely to be interpreted as meaning I don’t have an opinion on this question as opposed to meaning I will not respond to the question because it implies acceptance of the hypothesis.


(Speaking for myself and not necessarily for others on the Board)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

> Dear All,
> As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he). 
> Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January.  Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time.
> We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent.  To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible.  Participants are asked to express their personal views.
> This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.
> Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
> Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
> Best wishes,
> Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
> Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150105/6f0165ac/attachment.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list