[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll

Narelle Clark narelle.clark at accan.org.au
Fri Aug 1 04:00:56 UTC 2014

One more time from me – go ahead with this option.


From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut Richard Glaser
Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 7:20 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll

I am OK with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2).

On 31/07/14 17:59, Alissa Cooper wrote:

I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6><http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6>

and wanted to summarize where I think we are. Twenty-one ICG participants

responded to the poll (out of 30).*

There were four choices for people to provide feedback about in the poll:

One chair with one alternate (“1+1”)

Two co-chairs (“2”)

One chair with two alternates (“1+2”)

Three co-chairs (“3”)

There was no clear consensus among respondents about their preference

among the above choices — in fact responses were fairly evenly split among

all four choices. Ten people preferred the options that would yield two

chairs (1+1 or 2); 11 people preferred options that would yield three

chairs (1+2 or 3). The option preferred by the greatest number of

respondents was (3), with seven responses in favor, compared to five for

(1+1), five for (2), and four for (1+2).

The rationales given for people’s choices related primarily to

organizational concerns (i.e., which structure will make it easiest to

share the workload, determine consensus, organize amongst the chairs

themselves), diversity/balance of many sorts among the chairs, and

political aspects. These rationales were argued in different directions,

for and against the different options — again no consensus that I could


The poll also asked about which options people can’t live with. Five

respondents said they could not live with (3), four said they could not

live with (2), and each of the other options had two respondents each.

Most respondents could live with all four options.

So, it’s not obvious what to do here. Here is my suggestion, in the spirit

of compromise:

We go with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2) where the work is expected

to be divided among all three people. This can mitigate some of the

organizational concerns (since there will be one chair to be the backstop

responsible for getting things done if necessary) while providing three

slots’ worth of opportunity for diversity of different flavors. More

people preferred options that would yield three chairs, so this fits that

bill, and among the two options for that, (1+2) was the less controversial

(most everyone can live with it).

My hope is that people can accept this compromise in the interest of

getting on with the real work at hand -- if you absolutely cannot live

with this, please say so by Aug 5 at 20:00 UTC (if you're ok with it,

hearing that would be helpful too). Assuming people can accept this

approach, I’d like to ask Joe to figure out a process for conducting an

email vote or some such to get people appointed to these roles next week.


* One member of the community also responded.


Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140801/709f44e9/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list