[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll

[Jon Nevett]

Makes sense to me as well.  Best, Jon



On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:

> I can accept the 1+2 approach.  We still need to select the 2, and it sounds like we need to do that quickly since Alissa cannot attend a meeting on September 6th.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:59 PM, 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 (“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