<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>One more time from me – go ahead with this option.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Narelle <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Hartmut Richard Glaser<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 1 August 2014 7:20 AM<br><b>To:</b> Alissa Cooper; ICG<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt'><br>I am OK with </span></b>one chair and two vice chairs (1+2).<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>=========================================<o:p></o:p></span></b></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 31/07/14 17:59, Alissa Cooper wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6"><http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and wanted to summarize where I think we are. Twenty-one ICG participants<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>responded to the poll (out of 30).*<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>There were four choices for people to provide feedback about in the poll:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>One chair with one alternate (“1+1”)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Two co-chairs (“2”)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>One chair with two alternates (“1+2”)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Three co-chairs (“3”)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>There was no clear consensus among respondents about their preference<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>among the above choices — in fact responses were fairly evenly split among<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>all four choices. Ten people preferred the options that would yield two<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>chairs (1+1 or 2); 11 people preferred options that would yield three<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>chairs (1+2 or 3). The option preferred by the greatest number of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>respondents was (3), with seven responses in favor, compared to five for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(1+1), five for (2), and four for (1+2).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The rationales given for people’s choices related primarily to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>organizational concerns (i.e., which structure will make it easiest to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>share the workload, determine consensus, organize amongst the chairs<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>themselves), diversity/balance of many sorts among the chairs, and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political aspects. These rationales were argued in different directions,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for and against the different options — again no consensus that I could<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>see.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The poll also asked about which options people can’t live with. Five<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>respondents said they could not live with (3), four said they could not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>live with (2), and each of the other options had two respondents each.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Most respondents could live with all four options.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>So, it’s not obvious what to do here. Here is my suggestion, in the spirit<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of compromise:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>We go with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2) where the work is expected<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to be divided among all three people. This can mitigate some of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>organizational concerns (since there will be one chair to be the backstop<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>responsible for getting things done if necessary) while providing three<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>slots’ worth of opportunity for diversity of different flavors. More<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people preferred options that would yield three chairs, so this fits that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>bill, and among the two options for that, (1+2) was the less controversial<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(most everyone can live with it).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>My hope is that people can accept this compromise in the interest of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>getting on with the real work at hand -- if you absolutely cannot live<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with this, please say so by Aug 5 at 20:00 UTC (if you're ok with it,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hearing that would be helpful too). Assuming people can accept this<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>approach, I’d like to ask Joe to figure out a process for conducting an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>email vote or some such to get people appointed to these roles next week.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Alissa<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>* One member of the community also responded.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Internal-cg mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>