[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Fri Aug 1 05:30:08 UTC 2014

I agree this is the solution that is the best possible. We need, as many have said, move forward.


On 31 jul 2014, at 22:59, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <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
> see.
> 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.
> Alissa
> * One member of the community also responded.
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140801/e2befde4/signature.asc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list