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.
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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Makes sense to me as well. Best, Jon On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Russ Housley <housley@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
* 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 (“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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
One more time from me – go ahead with this option. Narelle From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut Richard Glaser Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 7:20 AM To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll 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><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@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
* 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 (“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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Ok as well. Sent from my iPad
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser@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 (“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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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@oracle.com> wrote:
Ok as well.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser@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 (“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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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@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@oracle.com> wrote:
Ok as well.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
+1 Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN -----Original Message----- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Sender: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:05:29 To: Paul Wilson<pwilson@apnic.net>; ICG<internal-cg@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@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@oracle.com> wrote:
Ok as well.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I also agree with Alyssa's proposal of 1+2. Keith Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:27 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@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@oracle.com> wrote:
Ok as well.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser@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 (“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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree this is the solution that is the best possible. We need, as many have said, move forward. Patrik On 31 jul 2014, at 22:59, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Your proposal is fine with me. --MM -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:00 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Alissa, I fully agree to your analysis and suggestion (1+2). Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:59 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I also agree with 1+2. Let's get on with it! I will also charge ahead, hoping that there will be no serious dissent this time: We seem to have consensus that we want Alissa to be the "1". So we need people to come forward who want to be the "2". Let us hear it if you are willing. I suggest you do it again even if you have expressed your willingness before. I propose that we formally appoint these three people at an August teleconference so that we have chairs who can prepare the September f2f and preside in Alissa's absence. In preparation for that I am willing to organise an electronic poll if that is considered to be helpful. Daniel
I'm ok with this approach and in the interest of moving forward I think Daniel's suggestion is good - we ought to decide on the +2 part for August. An electronic poll would be useful as it will take less floor time than a discussion on a conference call. Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: 01 August 2014 09:41 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll I also agree with 1+2. Let's get on with it! I will also charge ahead, hoping that there will be no serious dissent this time: We seem to have consensus that we want Alissa to be the "1". So we need people to come forward who want to be the "2". Let us hear it if you are willing. I suggest you do it again even if you have expressed your willingness before. I propose that we formally appoint these three people at an August teleconference so that we have chairs who can prepare the September f2f and preside in Alissa's absence. In preparation for that I am willing to organise an electronic poll if that is considered to be helpful. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I continue to support Alyssa as Chair. I would still be willing to serve as one of the +2 vice chairs, but please read the following: RATIONALE FOR: I am currently the Chair of the ICANN GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group and have been Chair or Alternate Chair since 2010. I have the expertise and experience and availability to help the group manage our business and to support the Chair. HOWEVER: I would be remiss if I didn't relay two comments I have received from a couple of individuals and which may be raised during our selection process. I would prefer to address them head-on. 1. There's a perception among some that the ICG is too North-American centric, or more specifically that there's a disproportionate number of reps from the USA. There's a belief that the perception of the group will be undermined if a majority of Chair/VC are from the USA. They view the choice of the Chair/VC roles an opportunity to show diversity and to ensure there's geographic diversity among Chair/VCs. 2. There's reportedly a perception among some that Verisign (my employer) is somehow conflicted in the work of the ICG due to our role as RZM and I should not be in a Chair or VC role. However, according to NTIA, Verisign's role in performing the RZM function is not the subject of the ICG's work on the IANA stewardship transition. The RZM function is in fact separate from the IANA functions and NTIA's stewardship of those functions, which IS the focus of NTIA's announcement and the community's work. If the roles of the Chair and Vice Chairs are truly administrative, neither of these perception issues should be disqualifiers (especially the Verisign/RZM issue because it's incorrect), but I wanted to be transparent about the comments I've heard before a vote begins. Thanks, Keith -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 4:41 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll I also agree with 1+2. Let's get on with it! I will also charge ahead, hoping that there will be no serious dissent this time: We seem to have consensus that we want Alissa to be the "1". So we need people to come forward who want to be the "2". Let us hear it if you are willing. I suggest you do it again even if you have expressed your willingness before. I propose that we formally appoint these three people at an August teleconference so that we have chairs who can prepare the September f2f and preside in Alissa's absence. In preparation for that I am willing to organise an electronic poll if that is considered to be helpful. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thank you Alissa, I support your proposal, and appreciate all the leadership you are providing. Lynn On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All Ihave followed this poll round of discussion with great interest . Let us examine the matter closely What is the issue To agree on A chair for the ICG with one vice chair or To agree on A chair for the ICG with two vice chairs ,or To agree on A chair for the ICG with three or perhaps four vice chairs ( each from four ICANN regional division = except the region from which the chair is elected or designated All this discussion is for a period not more than a year
From 18 Juld 8 London first quasi informal meeting ,because CAG represrentatives were not definitively designated / agreed by .... ) you are talikng ,arguing, discussing till today ,01 August and bnot yet agreed derfinitively I Wonder how we could come to consensus on the real issue ( Transition of the stewardship of IANA from NTIA to so-called global multistakeholder community the constituency of which is yet to be discussed ,understood and agreed upon) .We have put aside the real issue and fighting for who should chair and how and howmany I am surprized for such level of discussion Instead of preparing the ground for what are the options for such delicate, complex and difficult 7complex issue we just discuss who should be the boss and who should be sub-ordinate? I represent the Aia-Pacific region and I have to consult the region on the transition but we are still talking about something that could be easily decided. Frankly speaking I totally disagree with co-chair concept .One land one king. The chair should have full flexibilty and full accountabilty to take the most appropriate approach. I have had the experience of co-chairing a big conference of 1200 people with a less complex rtask than what we have before us and I can rtell you that the results was catastrophic. Many time the co-chair disagree with each other on how to proceedHowever, having one ,two or even four vicechair I can easily agree good luck Regards Kavouss.aRASTEH
2014-08-01 16:13 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org>:
Thank you Alissa,
I support your proposal, and appreciate all the leadership you are providing.
Lynn
On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Colleagues perhaps we should avoid the term chair as it is getting baggage it does not own. Our chair is the chief organizer but not the boss and has no power to develop dictates or even, for now, speak on our behalf without specific direction. these facts make this conversation even more futile as it is not a substantive position. Let us please come to a conclusion of this matter. The growing call is for one chair among those voicing an opinion. I must again say that we must get beyond the problem of lack of participation. If there is a problem join the conversation, if you need time to consult say so. But the concept that some folks only participate via a doodle poll, if at all, does tend to take away from the value of the multistakeholder conversation... Sent from my iPad
On Aug 1, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All Ihave followed this poll round of discussion with great interest . Let us examine the matter closely What is the issue To agree on A chair for the ICG with one vice chair or To agree on A chair for the ICG with two vice chairs ,or To agree on A chair for the ICG with three or perhaps four vice chairs ( each from four ICANN regional division = except the region from which the chair is elected or designated All this discussion is for a period not more than a year From 18 Juld 8 London first quasi informal meeting ,because CAG represrentatives were not definitively designated / agreed by .... ) you are talikng ,arguing, discussing till today ,01 August and bnot yet agreed derfinitively I Wonder how we could come to consensus on the real issue ( Transition of the stewardship of IANA from NTIA to so-called global multistakeholder community the constituency of which is yet to be discussed ,understood and agreed upon) .We have put aside the real issue and fighting for who should chair and how and howmany I am surprized for such level of discussion Instead of preparing the ground for what are the options for such delicate, complex and difficult 7complex issue we just discuss who should be the boss and who should be sub-ordinate? I represent the Aia-Pacific region and I have to consult the region on the transition but we are still talking about something that could be easily decided. Frankly speaking I totally disagree with co-chair concept .One land one king. The chair should have full flexibilty and full accountabilty to take the most appropriate approach. I have had the experience of co-chairing a big conference of 1200 people with a less complex rtask than what we have before us and I can rtell you that the results was catastrophic. Many time the co-chair disagree with each other on how to proceedHowever, having one ,two or even four vicechair I can easily agree good luck Regards Kavouss.aRASTEH
2014-08-01 16:13 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org>:
Thank you Alissa,
I support your proposal, and appreciate all the leadership you are providing.
Lynn
On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Alissa & Colleagues, I have been asked to convey the following message to you on behalf of the ALAC. BEGIN QUOTE: Dear Interim Chair and Members of the Coordination Group, In my message dated 26th of July, the ALAC respectfully requested that the "Chair structure poll" be discontinued and that the decision taken by the Coordination Group in London on July 18th, which was reached through a proper process and was duly documented, be implemented. In summarising the results of the poll, you as Interim Chair concluded that "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." The Coordination Group had reached a consensus during its face-to-face meeting in London, and it is a matter of great concern for the ALAC that, after that consensus was reached, some of your members were/are keen to try to achieve a different consensus, which is unwise and unwarranted. There was already no rational justification for rescinding the London decision, and the outcome of your poll now makes it even more compelling to abide by the vote of the 18th of July. I wish to express again the ALAC's concern that resorting to ad hoc processes could well weaken the trust and confidence of the global user community in the Coordination Group, without which the CG will find it difficult to propose a transition plan capable of garnering wide and durable support. On behalf of the ALAC, I reiterate the request that the poll, now completed, be simply set aside, on the grounds that it was conducted on an ad hoc basis, and that the decision taken in London be implemented without further delay. Best regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC. END OF QUOTE. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> À: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Jeudi 31 Juillet 2014 22:59:39 Objet: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Jean-Jaques, thank you very much for conveying the position of ALAC again. I had hoped that ALAC would take note that several ICG members have expressed a different interpretation of what has in fact occurred at our London meeting. It is unfortunate that we do not have agreed minutes we can refer to; however re-reading the transcript re-enforces my own perception that in fact the proceedings were merely exploratory and no decision in the matter was taken at that meeting. It is unfortunate and not at all helpful that ALAC has decided to re-iterate its firm position in the light of a compromise emerging. I fear that this matter will have to be resolved at a face-to-face meeting unless ALAC chooses to change its position in the direction of the emerging compromise. We now face a number of operational challenges: we have to agree on who prepares and chairs the August teleconference. It is my perception that there is consensus that Alissa do so for us. It would help if we could hear explicit opinions from the ICG membership about this. More seriously we have to agree who prepares and chairs our September f2f meeting. Since I understand that Alissa will not be available to chair the meeting we will have to find another person for that role, at least until we decide on definite chairs. The only practical solution I can see is to engage an external chair for this purpose. We need to come to agreement on this soon if we care about the image of this group. Amicalment Daniel
Colleagues: At the end of the day for me there is a slight preference for a 1+2 solution, but as this is a purely procedural and administrative position the end result is less important. I do have a concern related to process. I am not in agreement with the ALAC position that we cannot evolve positions over time or that humming in a physical meeting is any better way of canvassing the crowd than doodle polling. To me, the reconsideration of this position is not "ad-hoc" as it represented the desire of the majority of those that commented. Here we get to my largest frustration. We are not serving or have not been appointed by our various communities to be silent. We need the active participation of all members. I can understand that participation in Auguest may be somewhat spotty, but this cannot be the case as we go into the balance of our process. I would like us to return to previous proposals about online processes that I and others have made to agree on how decisions can be made pursuant to which processes. Best- Joe On 8/3/2014 4:59 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Dear Jean-Jaques,
thank you very much for conveying the position of ALAC again. I had hoped that ALAC would take note that several ICG members have expressed a different interpretation of what has in fact occurred at our London meeting. It is unfortunate that we do not have agreed minutes we can refer to; however re-reading the transcript re-enforces my own perception that in fact the proceedings were merely exploratory and no decision in the matter was taken at that meeting.
It is unfortunate and not at all helpful that ALAC has decided to re-iterate its firm position in the light of a compromise emerging. I fear that this matter will have to be resolved at a face-to-face meeting unless ALAC chooses to change its position in the direction of the emerging compromise.
We now face a number of operational challenges: we have to agree on who prepares and chairs the August teleconference. It is my perception that there is consensus that Alissa do so for us. It would help if we could hear explicit opinions from the ICG membership about this.
More seriously we have to agree who prepares and chairs our September f2f meeting. Since I understand that Alissa will not be available to chair the meeting we will have to find another person for that role, at least until we decide on definite chairs. The only practical solution I can see is to engage an external chair for this purpose. We need to come to agreement on this soon if we care about the image of this group.
Amicalment
Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Joseph, what you say here is very similar to what made me react so strongly to what ALAC is doing. We should not tolerate someone just asserting that we made a certain decision and digging in on that asserted decision. This kind of behaviour is not useful at best and destructive at worst. If we tolerate this behaviour at this early stage, we encourage others to show it as well. Should that happen we will have little chance of achieving a result within a reasonable time and especially not in the very short time line that is currently on the table largely unopposed. Note well that I am not arguing with the rationale that Jean-Jaques puts forward. I am opposed to tolerating the behaviour mentioned above. Daniel On 3.08.14 15:05 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
Colleagues:
At the end of the day for me there is a slight preference for a 1+2 solution, but as this is a purely procedural and administrative position the end result is less important.
I do have a concern related to process. I am not in agreement with the ALAC position that we cannot evolve positions over time or that humming in a physical meeting is any better way of canvassing the crowd than doodle polling. To me, the reconsideration of this position is not "ad-hoc" as it represented the desire of the majority of those that commented. Here we get to my largest frustration. We are not serving or have not been appointed by our various communities to be silent. We need the active participation of all members. I can understand that participation in Auguest may be somewhat spotty, but this cannot be the case as we go into the balance of our process.
I would like us to return to previous proposals about online processes that I and others have made to agree on how decisions can be made pursuant to which processes.
Best-
Joe On 8/3/2014 4:59 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Dear Jean-Jaques,
thank you very much for conveying the position of ALAC again. I had hoped that ALAC would take note that several ICG members have expressed a different interpretation of what has in fact occurred at our London meeting. It is unfortunate that we do not have agreed minutes we can refer to; however re-reading the transcript re-enforces my own perception that in fact the proceedings were merely exploratory and no decision in the matter was taken at that meeting.
It is unfortunate and not at all helpful that ALAC has decided to re-iterate its firm position in the light of a compromise emerging. I fear that this matter will have to be resolved at a face-to-face meeting unless ALAC chooses to change its position in the direction of the emerging compromise.
We now face a number of operational challenges: we have to agree on who prepares and chairs the August teleconference. It is my perception that there is consensus that Alissa do so for us. It would help if we could hear explicit opinions from the ICG membership about this.
More seriously we have to agree who prepares and chairs our September f2f meeting. Since I understand that Alissa will not be available to chair the meeting we will have to find another person for that role, at least until we decide on definite chairs. The only practical solution I can see is to engage an external chair for this purpose. We need to come to agreement on this soon if we care about the image of this group.
Amicalment
Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear colleagues, it seems we are close to finish. We have so far rough consensus on the number: 3. We just have to resolve the (mathematical/political) question: 3 = 1+1+1 or 3 = 1+2? For me personally it doesn't matter. The "leadership" is not a question of power rather than of the ability to keep the workflow running. If it is easier to find consensus for 1+1+1 let's move on. Re one aspect my flexibility is more limited: as already agreed earlier I support Alissa being chair. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 8:58 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll Dear Alissa & Colleagues, I have been asked to convey the following message to you on behalf of the ALAC. BEGIN QUOTE: Dear Interim Chair and Members of the Coordination Group, In my message dated 26th of July, the ALAC respectfully requested that the "Chair structure poll" be discontinued and that the decision taken by the Coordination Group in London on July 18th, which was reached through a proper process and was duly documented, be implemented. In summarising the results of the poll, you as Interim Chair concluded that "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." The Coordination Group had reached a consensus during its face-to-face meeting in London, and it is a matter of great concern for the ALAC that, after that consensus was reached, some of your members were/are keen to try to achieve a different consensus, which is unwise and unwarranted. There was already no rational justification for rescinding the London decision, and the outcome of your poll now makes it even more compelling to abide by the vote of the 18th of July. I wish to express again the ALAC's concern that resorting to ad hoc processes could well weaken the trust and confidence of the global user community in the Coordination Group, without which the CG will find it difficult to propose a transition plan capable of garnering wide and durable support. On behalf of the ALAC, I reiterate the request that the poll, now completed, be simply set aside, on the grounds that it was conducted on an ad hoc basis, and that the decision taken in London be implemented without further delay. Best regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC. END OF QUOTE. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> À: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Jeudi 31 Juillet 2014 22:59:39 Objet: [Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (18)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Drazek, Keith -
Hartmut Richard Glaser -
James M. Bladel -
Jon Nevett -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
mnuduma＠yahoo.com -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
Russ Housley -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben