[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C

[Corwin, Philip]

George:

This co-chair categorically reject your reckless charge that I have engaged in "fear-mongering".

I regard that as a personal affront. You really should apologize.

Please stick to the substance ands stop making reckless and unfounded allegations about others' motivations.

As for revelation of how any member voted on our preliminary consensus call, those members who wish to reveal how they marked their ballots are free to do so -- but we will not violate reasonable expectations of privacy, especially when it now clear that support for Option C can expose one to reckless charges.

Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 2:17 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C

I think the comments within this survey are quite telling. Those who are in favour of option A (and opposing option C) have very strong and fully considered views, which they can explain and support with facts and reasoning. Compare that to those expressing support for C (and opposing A/B). They make statements like:

"Fair and balanced" (supporting C)
"DOA at Council" (opposing A)

bereft of credible reasoning.

This demonstrates that it's fear-mongering by the co-chairs and political motivations that led some to switch from Option 1 (now Option A) to Option C (formerly Option 2), rather than anything based on new facts or new analysis. Given this, it explains the refusal by the co-chairs to attach names to those who are supporting Option C -- there's no expectation of privacy here --- everyone must vote publicly when it comes down to a final consensus call, and should have been able to publicly explain why they supported Option C in this preliminary survey.

In the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio that I'm reading, he writes about how decisions at Bridgewater go through what's called "believability-weighted decision making", see some discussion of that
at:

http://www.businessinsider.com/bridgewater-ray-dalio-legacy-2017-9

I think that is a wise approach, whereby votes that are backed by sound logic, facts, experience, and reasoning should be weighted much higher than votes that lack those attributes and which are instead fear-driven and thus are not believable.

It's been said that "One man with courage makes a majority." Hopefully it does not have to come to that.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/














On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> As noted on the Working Group call yesterday, please find attached the
> consolidated results of the informal poll that was conducted regarding
> Working Group member preferences as among Options A, B and C.
>
>
>
> Individual Working Group members – especially those who provided
> specific comments as part of their poll response – are invited to add
> any relevant background and further thoughts to this email.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp