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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Jan 5 22:33:13 UTC 2015


Here are my views in response to your email.

First, there is an open field for comments at the end of each section (one
for the CSC, one for the MRT).  You should use these to comment on specific
statements, as well as to provide any more general comments you wish to

Second, there is no implied acceptance of the embedded assumption.
Apparently, we may not have communicated this well enough.  A response to a
statement that assumes A is not in any way going to be interpreted as
acceptance of A.  What we are looking for is reactions to each of the
discrete propositions.  The embedded assumption is purely for the sake of
context ("assuming arguendo" as the lawyers say).  Speaking for myself, I
will not read any answer to a question that assumes the existence of, e.g.,
the MRT, as a tacit indication of preference for the MRT.

Consider these questions to be somewhat similar to the "Desert Island
Discs" question (If you were stuck on a desert island, which ten records
would you want with you?).  Answering the question does not imply that you
think that being stranded on a desert island is a Good Thing, or even
remotely acceptable.  You can reject the premise, and still answer the
question, and that will not in any way make the premise more likely.

Best regards,


(Also speaking for myself but hopefully aligned with others who assisted in
putting this survey together.)

(By the way, my list (today) is Giant Steps, Kind of Blue, The Royal Scam,
Stunt (Barenaked Ladies), Twin Cinema (New Pornographers), The Atomic Basie
(Count Basie), Pure Desmond (Paul Desmond), Concierto (Jim Hall), 100 Days,
100 Nights (Sharon Jones) and Blue Moses (Randy Weston).  Tomorrow, it
might be quite different.)

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org>

> 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.
> Steve
> (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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c5f10733/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list