<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<b><big><br>
I am OK with </big></b>one chair and two vice chairs (1+2).<br>
<pre wrap=""><b><big>=========================================
</big></b></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/07/14 17:59, Alissa Cooper wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CFFFFC4B.4BB71%25alissa@cooperw.in"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6"><http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6></a>
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>