[CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment summary/analysis

Niels ten Oever lists at nielstenoever.net
Thu Jan 7 19:27:14 UTC 2016


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Dear Bernard,

Thanks for your explanation, I still have some questions though. There
are a fair amount of N/A's in colum D, E, and F as you mentioned. But
at the bottom, there is a summary of support, against, neutral and N/A.

I would be very interested where the number of support, against and
neutral are based on, because they do not correspond to the 1's and
0's in column D, E and F. Or am I mistaken? Or, if the staff assessed
these, could you also let us know which proposals are counted as
support, which as against and which as neutral?

Thanks in advance for your explanation.

All the best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 01/06/2016 08:28 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> All,
> 
> Malcolm confirmed his issue was around all the N/A's in the
> summary sheets in columns D, E and F.
> 
> This is to be expected.  As the overarching title of these three
> columns states "If no survey response - staff assessment".
> 
> As such if there was a response given in the survey monkey these
> columns are not filled in and contain N/A (almost 57% of responses
> used the survey).
> 
> Additionally if the survey monkey form was not used and a
> respondent did not comment on a recommendation those columns will
> also contain N/A (there were quite a few of these also).
> 
> Hope this clears up any misconceptions.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> B.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net 
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
> 
> I'm also a bit confused by the prevalence of "N/A".
> 
> There seem to be a great many cases where the respondent writes
> "We support this recommendation and ... (think/stress X,Y,Z)" where
> the item is marked as "N/A" in the support/disagreement columns.
> 
> But it looks as though surveymonkey and direct replies may have
> been counted separately.
> 
> Nor is it at all clear on what basis some replies have been picked
> out for "analysis", but not others.
> 
> Perhaps the staff could give more of an explanation as to how this
> was constructed?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> On 06/01/2016 16:44, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>> Alice,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for this. The Heritage Foundation’s opposition to full
>> GAC participation in the empowered community was not noted in the
>> Rec 1 analysis. As stated in our comment, we think that GAC
>> should be
> strictly
>> advisory.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Rec 7 analysis, I’m concerned that our position may be
> misunderstood.
>> We support including DIDP in an appeals process, but we are very
>> much against restricting it to the engagement, escalation, and
>> enforcement staircase because that process is dependent on the
>> Empowered
> Community.
>> DIDP appeals need to be accessible to everyone, not just the
> SOACs, and
>> appeals should not require SOAC approval at any threshold. This
>> may require moving DIDP appeals to the request for
>> reconsideration
> process.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Rec 11, the one sentence summary gives the impression that we
> support
>> Rec 11. We do not and offered specific proposals on how to change
>> the text to address our concerns, which were not included in the
>> Rec 11 analysis.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Brett
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
>
>  BrettSchaefer
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
>> Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for
>> National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214
>> Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097
>> <tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org <http://heritage.org>
>> <http://heritage.org/>
>> 
>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of
>> *Alice Jansen *Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:04 AM *To:*
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment 
>> summary/analysis
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _On behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs_
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Attached to this email you will find a staff produced summary
>> and analysis of the public comments received on our Draft
>> Proposal.
>> 
>> In preparation for our January discussions, we encourage you to
> read the
>> document as well as comments available for full reference at:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-propos
al-30nov15/.
>
>  Note: a /download all/ page is available
>> at
>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
>
>> 
> 
>> Please note that we cannot convert the spreadsheet into a PDF,
>> the
> tabs
>> and spreadsheet being too large. Thank you for your
>> understanding.
>> 
>> Staff will post the summary on the public forum box on Friday, 8
> January
>> -
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos
al-2015-11-30-en.
>
>  In the meantime, it is located on your wiki
>> at
>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
>
>> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>> 
> 
> 
> -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 
> <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the
> LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange |
> http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
> London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street,
> London EC3R 8AJ
> 
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity
> Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWjrwRAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpsMEH/3ka78ew0KaXQZz7VSK++ujB
GtLQmchagbf9PrAB4eNw2oV2+6R8NJUzgXlxsHWF4LpInrN42HTolEe0/hcDMZsG
fydbREiaELGpX0lx2mmRycYzTQgyCLyV/p/nwGw0QMPz3Dv4XzdmN4ittFgp+dTA
99Vq6sQ58wBB4CPZJ1ZRLSsO4LMu1tZltLb9PsVhtFeNsc1iAMXDbLOhFoc402HN
ND8s9c+Kc5ZQGLN0x4hOFTzaJYFf+IGE87P5X6TEEdC0ynqXlzyxcAPFcrcXhi9m
yOjXoXTA4skCfJM6VxTBvCSbFDfarn/nBAZlpCm3qM0uJzIvJnu/90n34Tq1d/0=
=ufQ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list