[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll

Joseph Alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sat Aug 2 05:20:17 UTC 2014

Colleagues perhaps we should avoid the term chair as it is getting baggage it does not own.  Our chair is the chief organizer but not the boss and has no power to develop dictates or even, for now, speak on our behalf without specific direction.  these facts make this conversation even more futile as it is not a substantive position.  Let us please come to a conclusion of this matter.  The growing call is for one chair among those voicing an opinion.  I must again say that we must get beyond the problem of lack of participation.  If there is a problem join the conversation, if you need time to consult say so.  But the concept that some folks only participate via a doodle poll, if at all, does tend to take away from the value of the multistakeholder conversation...

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 1, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All
> Ihave followed this poll round of discussion with great interest .
> Let us examine the matter closely
> What is the issue
> To agree on  A chair for the ICG with  one  vice chair  or
> To agree on  A chair for the ICG with  two vice chairs ,or
> To agree  on A chair for the ICG with  three or perhaps four vice chairs ( each from four ICANN regional division = except the region from which the chair is elected or designated
> All this discussion is for a period not more than a year
> From 18 Juld 8 London first quasi informal meeting ,because CAG represrentatives were  not definitively designated / agreed by .... ) you are talikng ,arguing, discussing till today ,01 August and bnot yet agreed derfinitively
> I Wonder how we could come to consensus on the real issue ( Transition of the stewardship of IANA from NTIA to so-called global multistakeholder community the constituency of which is yet to be discussed ,understood and agreed upon) .We have put aside the real issue and fighting for who should chair and how and howmany
> I am surprized for such level of discussion
> Instead of preparing the ground for what are the options for such delicate, complex and difficult 7complex issue we just discuss who should be the boss and who should be sub-ordinate?
> I represent the Aia-Pacific region and I have to consult the region on the transition but we are still talking about something that could be easily decided.
> Frankly speaking I totally disagree with co-chair concept .One land one king.
> The chair should have full flexibilty and full accountabilty to take the most appropriate approach.
> I have had the experience of co-chairing a big conference of 1200 people with a  less complex rtask than what we have before us and I can rtell you that the results was catastrophic.
> Many time the co-chair disagree with each other on how to proceedHowever, having one ,two or even four vicechair I can easily agree
> good luck
> Regards
> Kavouss.aRASTEH
> 2014-08-01 16:13 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at lstamour.org>:
>> Thank you Alissa,
>> I support your proposal, and appreciate all the leadership you are providing.
>> Lynn
>> On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:59 PM, 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140802/2a1dd10e/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list