With all respect, these demands for a breakdown of views expressed by region and nation, and statements implying  that views expressed by citizens of certain countries are somehow suspect or deserve less weight, are unprecedented and offensive. In a decade of work within ICANN I have never before seen requests that individual views should be related to geographic location as a means of judging their authenticity or value. If we are going to go down that road then to get a complete picture we will have to also note where members are citizens of nations that have strained relations with the US or which favor a multilateral over a multistakeholder model. All that will do is create unnecessary division.

 

ICANN and this subgroup are open to participation by all, and the views expressed by members should be judged on their merits alone.

 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

 

Twitter: @VlawDC

 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 5:46 AM
To: Perez Galindo, Rafael
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

 

Dear Jorge, Rafael

These are non valid excuse not to publish Q4 as our US colleagues do not want to even get some comments on that relation.

We then have to also object to send out Qs 1-3.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed 

No questions go out or all questions are published.

The community are being captured by a group of people belonging to certain country

Forgetting the rest of the entire community

Kavouss

 

   


Sent from my iPhone


On 16 Dec 2016, at 10:27, Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetad.es> wrote:

+1 Jorge.

 

Milton, if one of your arguments for deleting Q4 is lack of time of the respondents, I hope you realize how weak these kind of claims are, and how they do not support your position.

 

We should never be afraid of compiling information. After 2 years of working together, this group has shown to be mature enough to be able to weed out, once the answers have been received.

 

Rafael

 

 

De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Enviado el: jueves, 15 de diciembre de 2016 23:23
Para: milton@gatech.edu; mathieu.weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

 

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.

You have to understand that the time and attention span of survey respondents is limited. If you throw a long, ambiguous and unclear question at them you get fewer responses. And by asking for opinions rather than facts, Q4 taints the rest of the questions and we are likely to get more opinions and fewer facts as a result.

 

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.com]
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-community

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.