CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL)
Dear All, As communicated on this Group's mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he). Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time. We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views. This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG. Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.
Jonathan, et al, I sat down to respond to this survey with the intention of entering the responses I had previewed for you a few days ago. I had not fully realized during the discussions over the past few days that in addition to having structurally defective questions, there wouldn’t be any way to enter commentary instead of or in addition to the multiple choices offered. This isn’t acceptable. As I pointed out quite vigorously in the discussions over the past few days, the questions include hypothesis that aren’t acceptable to me and perhaps others. This creates a logical paradox with respect to attempting to answer each question. The questions are generally of the form, “Assuming hypothesis H, e.g. the existence of the MRT, do you agree or disagree with detail D, e.g. terms of the members should be staggered?” The only possible choices for a person with my views are either Strongly Disagree or No Response. However, each of these is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently than intended. Would a response of Strongly Disagree be interpreted as meaning I think the terms should not be staggered instead of what I really mean, i.e. I strongly disagree with the embedded assumption? The alternative of No Response is equally problematic because it’s likely to be interpreted as meaning I don’t have an opinion on this question as opposed to meaning I will not respond to the question because it implies acceptance of the hypothesis. Steve (Speaking for myself and not necessarily for others on the Board) On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Dear All,
As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he).
Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time.
We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views.
This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.
Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Steve, Here are my views in response to your email. First, there is an open field for comments at the end of each section (one for the CSC, one for the MRT). You should use these to comment on specific statements, as well as to provide any more general comments you wish to make. Second, there is no implied acceptance of the embedded assumption. Apparently, we may not have communicated this well enough. A response to a statement that assumes A is not in any way going to be interpreted as acceptance of A. What we are looking for is reactions to each of the discrete propositions. The embedded assumption is purely for the sake of context ("assuming arguendo" as the lawyers say). Speaking for myself, I will not read any answer to a question that assumes the existence of, e.g., the MRT, as a tacit indication of preference for the MRT. Consider these questions to be somewhat similar to the "Desert Island Discs" question (If you were stuck on a desert island, which ten records would you want with you?). Answering the question does not imply that you think that being stranded on a desert island is a Good Thing, or even remotely acceptable. You can reject the premise, and still answer the question, and that will not in any way make the premise more likely. Best regards, Greg (Also speaking for myself but hopefully aligned with others who assisted in putting this survey together.) (By the way, my list (today) is Giant Steps, Kind of Blue, The Royal Scam, Stunt (Barenaked Ladies), Twin Cinema (New Pornographers), The Atomic Basie (Count Basie), Pure Desmond (Paul Desmond), Concierto (Jim Hall), 100 Days, 100 Nights (Sharon Jones) and Blue Moses (Randy Weston). Tomorrow, it might be quite different.) On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org> wrote:
Jonathan, et al,
I sat down to respond to this survey with the intention of entering the responses I had previewed for you a few days ago. I had not fully realized during the discussions over the past few days that in addition to having structurally defective questions, there wouldn’t be any way to enter commentary instead of or in addition to the multiple choices offered. This isn’t acceptable. As I pointed out quite vigorously in the discussions over the past few days, the questions include hypothesis that aren’t acceptable to me and perhaps others. This creates a logical paradox with respect to attempting to answer each question. The questions are generally of the form, “Assuming hypothesis H, e.g. the existence of the MRT, do you agree or disagree with detail D, e.g. terms of the members should be staggered?” The only possible choices for a person with my views are either Strongly Disagree or No Response. However, each of these is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently than intended. Would a response of Strongly Disagree be interpreted as meaning I think the terms should not be staggered instead of what I really mean, i.e. I strongly disagree with the embedded assumption? The alternative of No Response is equally problematic because it’s likely to be interpreted as meaning I don’t have an opinion on this question as opposed to meaning I will not respond to the question because it implies acceptance of the hypothesis.
Steve
(Speaking for myself and not necessarily for others on the Board)
On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Dear All,
As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he).
Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage *every* CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than *23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January*. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time.
We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views.
This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.
Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Steve,
Here are my views in response to your email.
First, there is an open field for comments at the end of each section (one for the CSC, one for the MRT). You should use these to comment on specific statements, as well as to provide any more general comments you wish to make.
Ah. I hadn’t realized this. This is helpful. Thanks.
Second, there is no implied acceptance of the embedded assumption. Apparently, we may not have communicated this well enough. A response to a statement that assumes A is not in any way going to be interpreted as acceptance of A. What we are looking for is reactions to each of the discrete propositions. The embedded assumption is purely for the sake of context ("assuming arguendo" as the lawyers say). Speaking for myself, I will not read any answer to a question that assumes the existence of, e.g., the MRT, as a tacit indication of preference for the MRT.
I’ll do what I can to answer with this understanding. In some cases this will work well enough. For example, if there is an MRT (or CSC or any other standing organization), I would generally agree that having staggered terms is good practice. But that’s a fairly easy case. Questions that ask whether the CSC should (or should not) escalate issues to the MRT are considerably more troublesome. I’ll give it another shot. Thanks for explaining this to me.
Consider these questions to be somewhat similar to the "Desert Island Discs" question (If you were stuck on a desert island, which ten records would you want with you?). Answering the question does not imply that you think that being stranded on a desert island is a Good Thing, or even remotely acceptable. You can reject the premise, and still answer the question, and that will not in any way make the premise more likely.
:) I understand the attempted analogy, but I don’t think it’s close enough to fit the current state of affairs. Steve
Best regards,
Greg
(Also speaking for myself but hopefully aligned with others who assisted in putting this survey together.)
(By the way, my list (today) is Giant Steps, Kind of Blue, The Royal Scam, Stunt (Barenaked Ladies), Twin Cinema (New Pornographers), The Atomic Basie (Count Basie), Pure Desmond (Paul Desmond), Concierto (Jim Hall), 100 Days, 100 Nights (Sharon Jones) and Blue Moses (Randy Weston). Tomorrow, it might be quite different.)
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org> wrote: Jonathan, et al,
I sat down to respond to this survey with the intention of entering the responses I had previewed for you a few days ago. I had not fully realized during the discussions over the past few days that in addition to having structurally defective questions, there wouldn’t be any way to enter commentary instead of or in addition to the multiple choices offered. This isn’t acceptable. As I pointed out quite vigorously in the discussions over the past few days, the questions include hypothesis that aren’t acceptable to me and perhaps others. This creates a logical paradox with respect to attempting to answer each question. The questions are generally of the form, “Assuming hypothesis H, e.g. the existence of the MRT, do you agree or disagree with detail D, e.g. terms of the members should be staggered?” The only possible choices for a person with my views are either Strongly Disagree or No Response. However, each of these is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently than intended. Would a response of Strongly Disagree be interpreted as meaning I think the terms should not be staggered instead of what I really mean, i.e. I strongly disagree with the embedded assumption? The alternative of No Response is equally problematic because it’s likely to be interpreted as meaning I don’t have an opinion on this question as opposed to meaning I will not respond to the question because it implies acceptance of the hypothesis.
Steve
(Speaking for myself and not necessarily for others on the Board)
On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Dear All,
As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he).
Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time.
We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views.
This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.
Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Steve: If it's not too late, note that every question also has, in effect, a "no comment" option. If you think a question is loaded with assumptions that make it impossible for you to answer properly, choose that option. I did that on two or three questions From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 6:17 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL) On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Steve, Here are my views in response to your email. First, there is an open field for comments at the end of each section (one for the CSC, one for the MRT). You should use these to comment on specific statements, as well as to provide any more general comments you wish to make. Ah. I hadn't realized this. This is helpful. Thanks. Second, there is no implied acceptance of the embedded assumption. Apparently, we may not have communicated this well enough. A response to a statement that assumes A is not in any way going to be interpreted as acceptance of A. What we are looking for is reactions to each of the discrete propositions. The embedded assumption is purely for the sake of context ("assuming arguendo" as the lawyers say). Speaking for myself, I will not read any answer to a question that assumes the existence of, e.g., the MRT, as a tacit indication of preference for the MRT. I'll do what I can to answer with this understanding. In some cases this will work well enough. For example, if there is an MRT (or CSC or any other standing organization), I would generally agree that having staggered terms is good practice. But that's a fairly easy case. Questions that ask whether the CSC should (or should not) escalate issues to the MRT are considerably more troublesome. I'll give it another shot. Thanks for explaining this to me. Consider these questions to be somewhat similar to the "Desert Island Discs" question (If you were stuck on a desert island, which ten records would you want with you?). Answering the question does not imply that you think that being stranded on a desert island is a Good Thing, or even remotely acceptable. You can reject the premise, and still answer the question, and that will not in any way make the premise more likely. :) I understand the attempted analogy, but I don't think it's close enough to fit the current state of affairs. Steve Best regards, Greg (Also speaking for myself but hopefully aligned with others who assisted in putting this survey together.) (By the way, my list (today) is Giant Steps, Kind of Blue, The Royal Scam, Stunt (Barenaked Ladies), Twin Cinema (New Pornographers), The Atomic Basie (Count Basie), Pure Desmond (Paul Desmond), Concierto (Jim Hall), 100 Days, 100 Nights (Sharon Jones) and Blue Moses (Randy Weston). Tomorrow, it might be quite different.) On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>> wrote: Jonathan, et al, I sat down to respond to this survey with the intention of entering the responses I had previewed for you a few days ago. I had not fully realized during the discussions over the past few days that in addition to having structurally defective questions, there wouldn't be any way to enter commentary instead of or in addition to the multiple choices offered. This isn't acceptable. As I pointed out quite vigorously in the discussions over the past few days, the questions include hypothesis that aren't acceptable to me and perhaps others. This creates a logical paradox with respect to attempting to answer each question. The questions are generally of the form, "Assuming hypothesis H, e.g. the existence of the MRT, do you agree or disagree with detail D, e.g. terms of the members should be staggered?" The only possible choices for a person with my views are either Strongly Disagree or No Response. However, each of these is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently than intended. Would a response of Strongly Disagree be interpreted as meaning I think the terms should not be staggered instead of what I really mean, i.e. I strongly disagree with the embedded assumption? The alternative of No Response is equally problematic because it's likely to be interpreted as meaning I don't have an opinion on this question as opposed to meaning I will not respond to the question because it implies acceptance of the hypothesis. Steve (Speaking for myself and not necessarily for others on the Board) On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Dear All, As communicated on this Group's mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he). Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time. We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views. This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG. Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
To me a 'no response' option as I think you originally suggested is better than a 'no opinion' option. I found in a couple cases that I would have chosen 'no response' if it was an option but it wasn't that I didn't have an opinion; in those cases I chose another option instead of 'no opinion'. I am not sure why 'no response' was changed to 'no opinion'. I suppose what I should have done is not put any response at all in those cases. Regardless, we know that this instrument is far some perfect so we need to use the information it provides cautiously. Still, I am optimistic that it will help us narrow down our work ahead. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 11:28 PM To: Steve Crocker; Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL) Steve: If it's not too late, note that every question also has, in effect, a "no comment" option. If you think a question is loaded with assumptions that make it impossible for you to answer properly, choose that option. I did that on two or three questions From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 6:17 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL) On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Steve, Here are my views in response to your email. First, there is an open field for comments at the end of each section (one for the CSC, one for the MRT). You should use these to comment on specific statements, as well as to provide any more general comments you wish to make. Ah. I hadn't realized this. This is helpful. Thanks. Second, there is no implied acceptance of the embedded assumption. Apparently, we may not have communicated this well enough. A response to a statement that assumes A is not in any way going to be interpreted as acceptance of A. What we are looking for is reactions to each of the discrete propositions. The embedded assumption is purely for the sake of context ("assuming arguendo" as the lawyers say). Speaking for myself, I will not read any answer to a question that assumes the existence of, e.g., the MRT, as a tacit indication of preference for the MRT. I'll do what I can to answer with this understanding. In some cases this will work well enough. For example, if there is an MRT (or CSC or any other standing organization), I would generally agree that having staggered terms is good practice. But that's a fairly easy case. Questions that ask whether the CSC should (or should not) escalate issues to the MRT are considerably more troublesome. I'll give it another shot. Thanks for explaining this to me. Consider these questions to be somewhat similar to the "Desert Island Discs" question (If you were stuck on a desert island, which ten records would you want with you?). Answering the question does not imply that you think that being stranded on a desert island is a Good Thing, or even remotely acceptable. You can reject the premise, and still answer the question, and that will not in any way make the premise more likely. :) I understand the attempted analogy, but I don't think it's close enough to fit the current state of affairs. Steve Best regards, Greg (Also speaking for myself but hopefully aligned with others who assisted in putting this survey together.) (By the way, my list (today) is Giant Steps, Kind of Blue, The Royal Scam, Stunt (Barenaked Ladies), Twin Cinema (New Pornographers), The Atomic Basie (Count Basie), Pure Desmond (Paul Desmond), Concierto (Jim Hall), 100 Days, 100 Nights (Sharon Jones) and Blue Moses (Randy Weston). Tomorrow, it might be quite different.) On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>> wrote: Jonathan, et al, I sat down to respond to this survey with the intention of entering the responses I had previewed for you a few days ago. I had not fully realized during the discussions over the past few days that in addition to having structurally defective questions, there wouldn't be any way to enter commentary instead of or in addition to the multiple choices offered. This isn't acceptable. As I pointed out quite vigorously in the discussions over the past few days, the questions include hypothesis that aren't acceptable to me and perhaps others. This creates a logical paradox with respect to attempting to answer each question. The questions are generally of the form, "Assuming hypothesis H, e.g. the existence of the MRT, do you agree or disagree with detail D, e.g. terms of the members should be staggered?" The only possible choices for a person with my views are either Strongly Disagree or No Response. However, each of these is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently than intended. Would a response of Strongly Disagree be interpreted as meaning I think the terms should not be staggered instead of what I really mean, i.e. I strongly disagree with the embedded assumption? The alternative of No Response is equally problematic because it's likely to be interpreted as meaning I don't have an opinion on this question as opposed to meaning I will not respond to the question because it implies acceptance of the hypothesis. Steve (Speaking for myself and not necessarily for others on the Board) On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Dear All, As communicated on this Group's mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he). Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time. We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views. This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG. Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear All, As Jonathan mentioned in his email on Jan 5th, the close of the CSC/MRT survey is 23:59 on Thursday, 8 January (Tomorrow). I kindly ask members and participants who have not yet completed the poll to please do so. URL of the survey is as follows - http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he <http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he> Thank you. regards Robert
On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Dear All,
As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he <http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he>).
Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time.
We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views.
This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.
Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
Thank-you Robert, Please note that significant input has been received but it would be really great if we could ensure we hear from ALL CWG MEMBERS if possible. Thank-you to all who have filled in so far. Jonathan From: Robert Guerra [mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org] Sent: 07 January 2015 15:50 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] POLL CLOSE REMINDER - CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL) Importance: High Dear All, As Jonathan mentioned in his email on Jan 5th, the close of the CSC/MRT survey is 23:59 on Thursday, 8 January (Tomorrow). I kindly ask members and participants who have not yet completed the poll to please do so. URL of the survey is as follows - <http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he> http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he Thank you. regards Robert On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: Dear All, As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online ( <http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he> http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he). Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time. We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views. This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG. Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, For those, like me, who are supposed to answer as members with a clue of what our constiuents might think, waiting until the last minute is optimal. avri On 07-Jan-15 14:46, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Thank-you Robert,
Please note that significant input has been received but it would be really great if we could ensure we hear from _ALL_ CWG MEMBERS if possible.
Thank-you to all who have filled in so far.
Jonathan
*From:*Robert Guerra [mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org] *Sent:* 07 January 2015 15:50 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] POLL CLOSE REMINDER - CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL) *Importance:* High
Dear All,
As Jonathan mentioned in his email on Jan 5th, the close of the CSC/MRT survey is 23:59 on Thursday, 8 January (Tomorrow).
I kindly ask members and participants who have not yet completed the poll to please do so. URL of the survey is as follows - http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he
Thank you.
regards
Robert
On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:
Dear All,
As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he).
Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage _every_ CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than *23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January*. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time.
We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views.
This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.
Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr
Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear all I just want to underline that the GAC members of the CWG haven’t had the opportunity to discuss the survey regarding CSC and MRT with the GAC. The response that we give on this survey is therefore a personal response as CWG member/ national representative in the GAC. Best regards Elise Knutssøn Lindeberg Senior Legal Adviser, GAC representative Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority e-mail: ekl@nkom.no<mailto:ekl@nkom.no> Mobile: +47 90190947 Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne av Robert Guerra Sendt: 7. januar 2015 16:50 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: [CWG-Stewardship] POLL CLOSE REMINDER - CWG Draft Proposal - A survey regarding the CSC and MRT (Re-sent with correct URL) Viktighet: Høy Dear All, As Jonathan mentioned in his email on Jan 5th, the close of the CSC/MRT survey is 23:59 on Thursday, 8 January (Tomorrow). I kindly ask members and participants who have not yet completed the poll to please do so. URL of the survey is as follows - http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he Thank you. regards Robert On Jan 5, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: Dear All, As communicated on this Group’s mailing list last week, we have worked on and prepared a survey regarding the CSC and MRT. The survey, is available online (http://goo.gl/forms/q29h3d29he). Through this survey, we are very keen to hear from as many of you as possible and therefore strongly encourage every CWG member and participant to complete the survey no later than 23:59 UTC on Thursday, 8 January. Note that it should be possible to complete the survey in 15-30 minutes time. We understand that the time you have been given to respond is very short and therefore that you may not be able to consult with any groups that they are a part of or represent. To the extent that Members can reflect the views of the groups they represent, that is desirable, but personal responses should be provided if that is not possible. Participants are asked to express their personal views. This survey is based on suggestions arising from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The overall goal is to get a high level sense of the views of the CWG participants (i.e. Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. The results of the survey will be used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG. Please note that this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Please note: Another survey is planned for a few days from now and that will include issues related to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) and Contract Co. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lindeberg, Elise -
Milton L Mueller -
Robert Guerra -
Steve Crocker