GregThere was no agreement to consider the review as First ReadingIt was sent back to reconsider the matter and resubmit it for firstReadingWe have to have a fresh lookNo questions or all questionsThis is the issue on the tableOnce we agree on that then there nay be some editing in Q 1 as I indicated " deletion of business and privacy"Pls kindly listen to us also and NOT to yourselfRegardsKavoussSent from my iPhoneThe CCWG Plenary had a first reading of each of the 4 questions and the Preamble. These were discussed, and some comments were received. The results of the poll were also distributed and discussed. No decisions were made.Presumably, there will be a second reading at the next CCWG Plenary meeting on January 11.GregOn Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:22 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:Dear Milton
I feel the supposed dangers of the fourth question are being exaggerated – we are mature enough to distinguish well-reasoned opinions from mere hypothesis. And respondents are also well-prepared to deal with 4 instead of 3 questions – I do not see any serious danger of overburdening them because of that. We could make clear that respondents only have to answer what they deem relevant.
Without wanting to repeat myself: to exclude a question that was supported by a slight majority in the poll indicates some fear on what could back in terms of substance – not because it would be useless, but because some in the group would not like the arguments being made.
I’m of the opinion that if we have good arguments and continue with a rational conversation there is no reason for such a fear whatsoever.
BTW: did the CCWG Plenary decide on this? Or give any direction? I would not like to spend time on a topic already decided…
Kind regards
Jorge
Von: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2016 23:13
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Betreff: RE: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
Jorge
Question 4 clearly does not have consensus support from the group. What DOES has clear overwhelming consensus is: a) Questions 1-3, and b) support for sending out the first 3 questions if 4 does not have sufficient support.
Worse, Q4 basically defeats the purpose of the entire fact-finding mission.
Our first 3 questions are short, clear and simple and factual in terms of what is needed to answer them
The 4th question is worded in a wooly and confusion manner and is asking for opinions, not facts.
Let’s bring this to a close and send out the factual questions by themselves. If people want to initiate another process to send out a completely different kind of question, let it be done separately.
--MM
From: accountability-cross-community
-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:06 AM
To: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
Dear CCWG
I apologize for not being able to attend today’s call due to other prior engagements.
Let me add that I’m in support of sending out all 4 questions prepared in the Jurisdiction Group.
I feel that at this point of our discussions, where we are trying to gather as many facts, experiences and reasoned opinions as possible which are relevant for the influence that ICANN’s jurisdiction has on its operations and accountability mechanisms, we should not rule out questions (as question nr. 4) that have been considered important by an important part of the Subgroup (in fact, by a slight majority of it).
At later stages we may determine whether ingoing responses regarding that question are factual or are mere opinions without a well-founded basis.
At this moment I think that excluding relevant questions could give rise to wrong perceptions and could potentially prevent us from knowing relevant experiences/assessments covered only by question nr. 4.
@staff: please note these comments in the relevant part of the call.
Thanks and
Best regards
Jorge
Von: accountability-cross-community
-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org ] Im Auftrag von Mathieu Weill
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2016 08:44
An: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org >
Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
Dear Colleagues,
On behalf of the jurisdiction subgroup rapporteurs, please find attached two documents that will be discussed in the upcoming plenary.
Best
Mathieu
De : Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.co
m ]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37
À : Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; acct-staff@icann.org
Objet : Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
Co-Chairs and Staff:
The Jurisdiction Subgroup is considering distributing a questionnaire. The first attachment shows the proposed preamble (introduction to the questions) and each of the questions proposed in the Subgroup.
The second attachment shows the results of a poll taken in the Subgroup to get a sense of support in the group for each of the questions.
These documents should be sent to the CCWG Plenary for discussion.
Greg
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-c ommunity
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- community