[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll
mnuduma at yahoo.com
mnuduma at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 1 06:39:12 UTC 2014
+1
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
-----Original Message-----
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sender: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:05:29
To: Paul Wilson<pwilson at apnic.net>; ICG<internal-cg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll
Sounds good to me. Let¹s do this and put this issue in our rear-view
mirror.
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/31/14, 17:05 , "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>Thanks Alissa, for your very considered approach.
>
>I agree with your proposal.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>On 1 Aug 2014, at 7:32 am, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Ok as well.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser at cgi.br>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am OK with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2).
>>> =========================================
>>>
>>> On 31/07/14 17:59, Alissa Cooper 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 (³1+1²)
>>>> Two co-chairs (³2²)
>>>> One chair with two alternates (³1+2²)
>>>> Three co-chairs (³3²)
>>>>
>>>> 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 people¹s 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 can¹t 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, it¹s 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
>>>> slots¹ 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, I¹d 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list