IANA CWG Meeting #14 (10 January 15:00 - 17:00 UTC)

---

Proposed Agenda: 

Agenda Call #1 - 10 January 2015

1. Roll Call

2. Welcome - setting the scene for the weekend sessions

3. Review the results of the survey

4. Consider areas of convergence / divergence

5. Confirm agenda for meeting #2 

 

Notes:

Please note that the documents in relation to item 3 were circulated to the mailing list just prior to this meeting. They include the survey questions for each survey, the Google 

survey results summary and an excel sheet analyzing the results. 

 

2. Welcome - setting the scene for the weekend session

• This is the first meeting of 4 meetings taking place this weekend. Co-chairs, co-coordinators and support staff are co-located to prepare efficiently for these meetings. 
• Maybe not as far along as originally hoped when this meeting was planned, but still considered important to hold these meetings to make progress
• Need to focus on areas where the group can make real progress
• Proposed content for 4 meetings, but these may shift depending on the outcome of each meeting.
• May run a timer to ensure that all comments are focused and concise
•  CWG may need to review timeline at the end of the weekend session to assess whether or not any changes will need to be made
• Focus call #1 on the outcome of the surveys - areas of convergence and divergence, followed by focusing on the details of those areas of convergence (call #2), possibly using  AC polling tool. 
• Develop further details possible focus of call #3 and link with CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, including possible conditional links could be focus of call #4. 

3. Review the results of the survey

Surveys represent a sentiment of the discussions to date. Analysis includes responses received by the deadline. 

Results generated were generated by Google view. Three documents for each survey: 1) survey questions, 2) survey summary (auto-generated), 3) survey analysis (excel sheet)

 

CSC_MRT Survey (document nr. 2 as circulated to the mailing list)

%Agree includes strongly agree, agree, is acceptable, %disagree includes disagree, strongly disagree

Strong Agreement (green on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate that % Difference (% Agree - % Disagree) > 75%

Agree - Flag used (yellow on the spreadsheet) - Flag used to indicate % Agree > 75%, but % Difference <75%

53 responses were received

 

Contract Co - IAP Survey

34 responses received by the deadline

revised version of the excel sheet will be circulated to correct some errors

 

CSC - Green areas (areas of convergence)

• There should be a CSG to carry out the tasks as defined the CWG Draft Proposal
• The CSG membership should primarily consists of ccTLD and gTLD registry operators with related experts
• The CSC should have a continuous existence
• Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity
• Users of the IANA naming function should be able to address issues directly with the IANA functions operator rather than being required to go to the MRT
• The role of the CSC should be focused on service level commitments performance indicators and quality assurance

MRT - Green areas (areas of convergence)

• The MRT should not recreate another ICANN
• Adequate care should be taken to restrict the growth dynamics of the MRT
• There should be multistakeholder representation on the MRT
• Members should have staggered terms to provide continuity
• The term length of MRT members should be limited to two full contract cycles

Contract Co - Green areas (areas of convergence)

• Whether Contract Co should be incorporated or not, and subject or not to a particular jurisdiction's laws should be examined by a neutral, unaffiliated expert.
• Contract Co should be extremely light-weight and its purpose should be limited to holding contracts for the names community
• The bylaws of contract co should narrowly and clearly limit its activities
• Circumstances for re-awarding the IANA Function Contract should be limited to issues of non-performance relating to the IANA function, such as a failure to execute against established SLAs or non-adherence to contract terms

Internal to ICANN option - Green areas (areas of convergence)

• Adequate accountability mechanisms in an ICANN Internal option should include the possibility of removing the IANA functions from ICANN
• An ICANN internal solution should include a mechanism where the IANA Functions can be removed from ICANN for cause related to the IANA Functions and contracted out to a third party

IAP - Green areas (areas of convergence)

• There should be a standard procedures for catching IANA process errors before resorting to an appeals process
• Appeals should be managed differently, depending on whether the appeal involves a gTLD or a ccTLD
• Terms of reference for the IAP and details on the composition of the panel should be defined
• The appeals process should be binding on the IANA Functions Operator
• Standing to file appeals should be defined
• gTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party they believe are contrary to approved gTLD policy
• ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegation decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy

Accountability - Green areas (areas of convergence)

• Ideally the CWG would have begun its work following the adoption of recommendations by the CCWG
• Ideally the CCWG would have begun its work before or at the same time as the CWG-IANA so that the groups could work in parallel
• ICANN should formally link the CWG-IANA and CCWG processes to ensure that the work moving forward takes into account equities from both processes so that in the end the community, ICANN, and NTIA have two well informed and robust plans to ensure the Internet's continued growth and evolution.
• Enhanced accountability must be in place prior to the IANA Stewardship transition
• Following the publication of the CCWG draft recommendations, an assessment should be conducted by the CWG-IANA to determine whether the CCWG outcome provides a satisfactory appeals mechanism
• A placeholder should be included in the CWG-IANA proposal that is submitted to the ICG to allow for further evaluation and work as needed after the CCWG track 1 recommendations are finalized.

Green areas does not mean that work is 'complete' - further details are likely to be developed and agreed to. 

 

5. Confirm agenda for meeting #2

Proposal to focus on first poll and areas of convergence (leave second poll results to tomorrow) - broad agreement to focus next meeting on CSC and MRT details

Transcript

Transcript CWG #14 10 Jan.doc

Transcript CWG #14 10 Jan.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3302ccq10w/

The audio recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/gq6r2w8gvp4cz9k6b9nm.mp3

Documents Presented

1.CWG CSC_MRT Survey.pdf

2.CSC_MRT Survey (Stats).pdf

3.CSC_MRT Summary_Results.pdf

4.Contract Co & IAP Survey.pdf

5.Contract Co & IAP Survey (Stats).pdf

6.Contract_Co_IAP_Summary_Results.pdf

Chat Transcript

Marika Konings:Welcome to the IANA Stewardship Transition Intensive Work Weekend meeting #1 on 10 January 2015

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:hello

  Sivasubramanian M:hello

  Sivasubramanian M:the

  Fatima Cambronero:hello

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):hello

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:hello

  Sivasubramanian M:chat

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:hello

  Sivasubramanian M:window

  Steve Crocker:Hello, everyone

  Sivasubramanian M:has

  Fatima Cambronero:chat is not working?

  Sivasubramanian M:a problem

  Staffan Jonson:Hello all

  Allan MacGillivray:Good day everyone

  Sivasubramanian M:may be the clock?

  Sivasubramanian M:now it looks alright....

  Grace Abuhamad:Yes, It was the clock -- apologies

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Limiting everyone to one word could keep us focused and conscise....

  Sivasubramanian M:Good idea Greg

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):What is considered suficient consensus?

  Sivasubramanian M:The clock performed exactly the function intended

  Milton Mueller:ugh. the survey results do not indicate the questions, and i find it baffling how to match up the numbers with questions 

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I think "convergence" is the appropriate word at this point, rather than "consensus."

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Milton, you'll need to look at the summary document as well.

  Brenden Kuerbis:MM: the third attached document was most helpful, with questions and histograms of responses

  Sivasubramanian M:And in the summary, the comments are shown anonymously, but there could be a line separator between one person's comment and the next

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Siva why do we need to know who said what in comments  as opposed to dealing WITH all the the Comments

  Milton Mueller:ah ,ust got to the third doc, after wasting considerable time on the second one

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Siva, there are lines between them.  They are white so not so easy to see.

  Sivasubramanian M:@CLO  It is safer not to know, but what I meant is the confusability when one comment follows another closely without a separation,,

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Ahh  OJ the white soace is too small noted...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:OKJ- OK

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):Siva, look for the white lines.

  Avri Doria:sorry to ebd up late, had to reboot to make things work.

  Greg Shatan (GNSO/CSG/IPC):I believe this presentation is a Google default (this was autogenerated).

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:AC  has been flakey on my machines lately @Avri

  Paul Kane:From a ccTLD perspective I do not feel the survey sample size can be considered representative

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that is why I am here twice  for this call *sigh*

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@CLO Proportional to your importance.

  Sivasubramanian M:@ CLO  The comment from one person, when immediately followed by another by a similar or even contrary idea, the reader reads it together could find it incohenerent  and sometimes confusing

  Grace Abuhamad:You have scroll control of the document so that you can zoom in

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Greg  sorry Greg, may be it is a problem  the google application that opens the file in my chrome book

  Milton Mueller:g'day Guerra

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):IS there a link to this table?

  Milton Mueller:Eduardo it was sent to us via email

  Marika Konings:@Eduardo - the documents were emailed to the list just prior to this meetinig

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Ok.Let me check...

  Grace Abuhamad:Ed -- I will upload to Wiki now. Apologies for not getting to that sooner

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thx Grace

  Grace Abuhamad:All -- I have uploaded the 6 documents here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Current+Drafts

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Grace: I got the emails. Thanks.

  Christo:The data on the screen are in sjch small font as to be illegible. CW

  Avri Doria:i.e. green means difference is greater than 75%

  Brenden Kuerbis:Right

  Brenden Kuerbis:to Steve's comment

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:we all have zoom control

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:question @Robert: is different weight for answers from participants and members of the team?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Avri - correct

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Erick - no

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:question @robert: how many cctlds vs gtlds vs others you have in the survey?

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:thanks bernard  :)

  Avri Doria:are there stats of the various group reps having particpated in the survey.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Erick - will lood at this but not calculated gs vs ccs after

  Avri Doria:ie. how many of the ccTLD member/particpants particpated.

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:thanks bernard (again)

  Avri Doria:did the ccTLD members particpate

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Several ccs did reply

  Graham:Hi Greg, Why did Kristina leave the IPC ?

  Graham:http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/csg/ipc

  Graham:I see it was edited yeterday.

  Paul Kane:Very few ccTLD participated.

  Grace Abuhamad:You all have scroll control for this document as well

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:we will try to give numbers in the next call

  Brenda Brewer:Seun Ojedeji has joined phone line

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):So, only 25% of the memebers answered the survey? Is that correct?

  Milton Mueller:no

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Erick and Paul - early look is 9 ccs responded

  Milton Mueller:Eduardo: members were 25% of the total respondents

  Avri Doria:what %age of the members answered the survey?

  Grace Abuhamad:@Graham This is not the forum for that discussion.

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:thanks bernard :)

  Matthew Shears:+ 1 Milton

  Seun Ojedeji:Finally in...hello everyone

  Graham:@Avri - OK.

  Milton Mueller:Is acceptable means "is acceptable" i.e. yes, barely

  Milton Mueller:why would anyone take "is acceptable" as a No, Olivier

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@MIlton: so if the  CWG totals 19 then only 68% of the members answred the survey

  Sivasubramanian M:Olivier's  point is very valid. 

  Milton Mueller:"only 68%" ???

  Sivasubramanian M:Is acceptbale should either be counted as a half agreement with a half score or grouped along with No response

  Steve Crocker:Oops!  The middle response should not be counted as part of the either the positive or negative responses

  Milton Mueller:Steve: not if you understand the English language

  Milton Mueller:Or do you have a new definition of "acceptable"?

  Milton Mueller:The middle response was not "neutral" or "no comment" it was "is acceptable

  Sivasubramanian M:Milton, the position of "is acceptble" right in the middle of agree and disagree is the same response position as "neutral"

  Matthew Shears:perhaps it means that one is more inclined to agree than disagree

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Olivier - Your point is well taken on 1b

  Avri Doria:is accceptable seems like it would mena yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:That is how I answered t survey @Matthew

  Milton Mueller:No, Siva, the survey designers consciously made a decision to define it not as neutral (we have a no comment or no opinion option) but as is acceptable

  Milton Mueller:+1 Bernard

  Steve Crocker:If the middle response is counted as a positive reply, this poll is more biased than I had originally thought.

  Milton Mueller:I mean +1, Bertrand

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Correct @Bertand

  Milton Mueller:"can ive with it" is very important in consensus

  Matthew Shears:agree with Bertrand

  Sivasubramanian M:Can live with it" cant be counted as a yes, together with strongly agree and agree

  Milton Mueller:it means you could live with it if you had to, but you are not an enthusiastic supporter

  Sivasubramanian M:Milton, it is statistically erroneous to count it as yes

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@milton +1

  Greg Shatan:Siva, I disagree.  Your suggestion is not acceptable.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Steve:  I don't think there is any intential bias.  But we should take into consideration that when there are a lot of 'Is Acceptable' we should recognize that as a less strong level of agreement.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@chuck +1

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:For the record, I am happy with the conscious decision made by the survey makers that there is an "is acceptable" answer that's not neutral. At this point, having a bunch of answers that are neutral would have been useless.

  Sivasubramanian M:Some participants might have chosen "Is acceptable" to indicate "is acceptable if inevitable"

  Paul Kane:Could we PLEASE move on to substance

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:"Can live with it" evokes for me something more at the end of a process, when all options have been expored and even people who are not completely in agreement with the solution are willing to accept it in the absence of a better solution. Something used to determine rough consensus at the end of a process. Should probably been counted carefully at that stage.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):In terms of eventually developing a strongly supported recommendation, 'Is acceptable' indicates a position that can be lived with although certainly not a preference.

  Greg Shatan:+1 to Paul Kane

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 10

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):@Steve: agree with you. Acceptable means it is OK to go either way. It is like saying that there is 50% of rain tomorrow. That means it may rain or not.

  Milton Mueller:laugh. who wants another ICANN?

  Sivasubramanian M:Such a response indicates a reluctant agreement, can't be counted as agreement

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Yes and let us remember this is simply a tool to help us do our work

  Grace Abuhamad:I'm sorry all -- Page 25

  Grace Abuhamad:Now page 26 for Question #7

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 32 for question #18

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 34 for Question 22

  Greg Shatan:Eduardo -- I disagree -- that would be the case if the response was "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

  Guru Acharya:No opinion is excluded from % calculations I think

  Sivasubramanian M:@ Steve  The inherent bias in this survey lies in the perisentence of the idea of CSC, MRT,  that drags the respondent to anwer persistent questions on CST or MRT even after a categorical no to the formation of CSC and MRT

  Matthew Shears:I think that there is inherent bias in a number of questions not just for the CSC and MRT

  Avri Doria:Greg: +1

  Guru Acharya:@Grace: Is possible for you to share who all are sitting together for the F2F?

  Avri Doria:No Opinion is the neutral answer.

  Greg Shatan:Siva, answering questions regarding the CSC does not imply that the respondent supports the CSC. However, we did ask that question in 1a, and had 89% positive response. 

  Milton Mueller:while we are waiting may I say something?

  Greg Shatan:This is not a F2F.

  Sivasubramanian M:The persistent questions on CSC and MRT are not sufficiently countered by equally persistent questions on No MRT, No CST.. for eg.  "Without a CSC do you think the RSSAC and SSAC could together guaratee the neutrality and technical stability of Numbers?"

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:greg... part of the members are in a f2f meeting, others only here :)

  Greg Shatan:That doesn't make it an F2F.

  Guru Acharya:@Greg: Sorry. Not F2F. Call it the administrative coordination gathering.

  Milton Mueller:ok Jonathan

  Greg Shatan:SIva, these statements were gleaned from the public comments.  So if there is a "bias," it is in the public comments.

  Grace Abuhamad:Hi Guru -- the Chairs and the Coordinators are co-located with support staff, their names are: Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr; Allan MacGillivray;  Robert Guerra; Greg Shatan; Chuck Gomes. Support staff: Marika Konings; Bernand Turcotte;  Theresa Swineehart; Grace Abuhamad (me )

  Sivasubramanian M:Greg, I am not saying that the bias is intentional.

  Guru Acharya:Thanks Grace

  Sivasubramanian M:Only that there could be a bias

  Greg Shatan:I am just identifying the source of what you call a "bias."

  Avri Doria:Robert: also a negative percentage does not make sense.  I understand in mean that the direction was in favor of disagree.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Avri - correct

  Graham:Contract Co ~ Needs to be subject to United States Law.

  Sivasubramanian M:A survey of this nature by Gallup would require a team of Poll Research experts brainstorming over evey word and every component.  This is a Community designed survey, I am merely pointing out the inevitbale flaws in the design, not implying that there is an intent to create a bisa

  Grace Abuhamad:Question #19 on Page 16

  Sivasubramanian M:bias

  Sivasubramanian M:At the same time, 

  Fatima Cambronero:echo

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Siva - This was not intended to meet that kind of criteria

  Steve Crocker:As a matter of simple math, if the "no response"  responses are thrown out, which is what Robert says he did, then there are only two kinds of responses, positive and negative.  So, in order to get to green, the postive responses have to be greater than 75% and the difference between positive and negative has to be greater than 75%.  These two statements necessarily force the positive responses to be 87% or higher.  Positive responses in the rnage 75% to 87.5% will be coded as yellow.  I'm not commenting on whether this is proper methodlogy or helpful, merely that by removing the NR responses, the interpetation becomes much simpler.

  Sivasubramanian M:At the same time,  quite unintentionally the through process of those who design the survey, especially from by someone not in the business of poll research, tends to unwittingly color the questions with the survey designer's beliefs.. That is what happened on the questions pertaining to CSC and MRT

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Steven - wee could redo with weights as we did for the public comments

  Graham:Based on "effect on US Consumers" the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8 will rule over "Contract Co".

  Milton Mueller:Questions with a large number of nonresponses should be taken with a grain of salt. To me, it indicates that the question was either badly phrased or perceived as a choice that did not have to be made by the respondent

  Sivasubramanian M:And there is also the gap on the summary in who said what... For e.g what percentage of those who believe that a CSC should exist come from Customers?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Milton - this was the intent of weights

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 17

  Graham:Whatever ICANN does now, is subject to US Antitrust Law.

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):@ Milton - Or there is not enough info to express an opinion.

  Graham:See DoC Docket Number: 980212036-8146-02.

  Sivasubramanian M:If most of the yes comes from Customers for the Customer SC, then the response requires to be sufficiently discounted

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 25 for question #32

  Sivasubramanian M:Leaving adobe room, on the phone, on the move, may not be able to raise hand if I want to speak, will interrupt briefly and wait for a yes

  Grace Abuhamad:Thanks Siva

  Milton Mueller:I don't think it iis a matter of quantitative weighting, Bernie I think we need to look at it qualitatively. as well

  Stephanie Perrin:Many of us chose no response where there appeared to be implicit assumptions with which we did not agree.  A large number for any one question should be a caution indiciator.  I agree that you have to look at it qualitatively.

  Milton Mueller:But if we collapse these responses to a single number (averaging across Strongly agree to Strongly disagree) we could weight that by the % of nonresponse

  Greg Shatan:Stephanie, that conflicts with the introduction and instructions.

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Martin: +1

  Matthew Shears:The comments are really important qualifiers to the questions in many cases

  Staffan Jonson:Martin +1

  Milton Mueller:Alan that is not inconsistent at all

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):The fact that a statement is colored green doesn't mean that more analysis is not needed.

  Stephanie Perrin:@Greg, not sure how that conflicts with the instructions. 

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):I have a real lag in AC repsonse.  Do others as well? or is this just on my side.  I note the rest of my network connectivity seems ok.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):If we have decided to not re-assign to someone else unless there are problems, then what is the purpos of accepting competing bids?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):But I explicitly said I was not looking for a discussion on this particular issuek, but asking whether we would be looking at  consistency.

  Guru Acharya:@avri: no lag for me

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):although my voice recption is fine, it is the ac chat and the hand raising that seems to lag badly.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Yes, but the number of memebres answering the second one is higher

  Grace Abuhamad:@Avri -- no lag for me. Perhaps try reloading?

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Alan - ok

  Milton Mueller:"start" becoming political? ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree with OCL   this is a tool remember!

  Seun Ojedeji:absolute +1 to @Olivier

  Guru Acharya:@alan: competing bids would still be required. perhaps youre saying its inconsistent with periodic bidding.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Robert: you missed number 1

  Grace Abuhamad:Question 6 is on page 31

  Paul Kane:@Olivier - WAY to much importance - can we not continue from keeping the proposal simple, functional and d efficinent (as discussed in Frankfurt)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:Note for PK - initial count is 7 ccs for this second survey

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):there is a problem, with continuing a survey after some values have already been published.  it is not that it becomes more political so much as people start responding based on the existing numbers.

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Sorry, I was looking at the wrong line. But thank you for pointing out

  Graham:Contract Co is not required; because honest businesses online as "Civil Society" don't mind being held accountable to US Consumer Protection Law.When we're not selling, we're Consumers and it's nice to know our Consumer interests are protected by Law.

  Grace Abuhamad:We are now on page 35 for Question 1

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 36

  Paul Kane:Thanks Bernie - my concern that this survey is not representative

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):if anything design yet another survey that explores the open questions in greater detail.

  Paul Kane:The new model needs to be SIMPLE

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 43 for question 13

  Donna Austin, RySG:I think there are probably even less gTLDs than ccTLDs that responded

  Paul Kane:Thanks Donna

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Agree @Paul

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 47 for question 20

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):i.e. the questions that we still have at the end of the weekend.

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 53

  Brenden Kuerbis:Yes, Avri. And if not that, we should explore the merits of arguments where there is high level of disagreemnt  or ambiguity

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 55

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):it is good we have at least something we all agree on - the work of another CWG

  Grace Abuhamad:Page 56

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:agree @paul and i plus the diversity of the survey (in the answers) is not clear for me.

  Milton Mueller:Robert focused only on the agreement questions, but there were a lot of interesting bimodal questions, which make clear where the division lie

  Brenden Kuerbis:Right

  Milton Mueller:Robert: wait until the 2nd poll is finished

  Steve Crocker:Send the spreadhssets.  We can manage the correlation wih the questioons

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):A spreadsheet is not a good tool for entering lots of text.

  Matthew Shears:is there any way the results pdfs coliring could be reissued to match the coloring on the stats pages

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):Agree with Steve.

  Greg Shatan:Matthew, I believe the coloring is part of the Google output.  Not sure if it can be customized.

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):SS withiut text is acceptable. Was just trying to make it easier.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Thanks for the work in any case.

  Brenden Kuerbis:Thx Robert, great effort by all who pulled thistogether

  Matthew Shears:yes - excellent!

  Donna Austin, RySG:Agreed, good job Robert

  Fatima Cambronero:yes, thanks @Robert!

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:"can live with it" is a last question in a rough consensus call. at that stage, I expect a few people used it as : I am not really clear on that question; but maybe I'm wrong.

  Grace Abuhamad:You all now have scroll control of the document

  Fatima Cambronero:agree @Bertrand but in these 2 surveys we have a sentence: "Please notethat this is NOT a consensus poll in any shape or form"

  Greg Shatan:Bertrand -- tend to doubt that it was used by those unclear.  Would expect them to go to the No Response/No Opinion

  Stephanie Perrin:+1 Milton

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:REALLY   Milton!

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:bernard we can have the distribution by country or nationality of the answers ?

  James Gannon - Security Focus (ind):Agreed

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):also hopefully, discussions will have moved on.

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):with my lag, i hope i see the poll by the time it closes.

  Milton Mueller:agree w chuck

  Seun Ojedeji:I think we should be careful about re-opening the survey because i don't kow what we are expecting to get again. People have responded and there is a stat

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Is the poll going to be openned to the public?

  Brenden Kuerbis:We're simply expecting to have the same repsonse size as the CSC/MRT poll

  Milton Mueller:it should only be open to partiicipants and members

  Staffan Jonson:As has been discussed several times, this survey must be merely “a feeling of the room”, and numbers shouldn’t be taken *too* serious (by methodoligacl reasons already discussed). Opening the poll further emphasis that the numbers are normative and that they should be ruling, which . according to me should not be the case.

  Milton Mueller:we certainly do not want an open survey at this point

  Seun Ojedeji:+1 to Staffan

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:let's open the polls to campaigning & canvassing and let's keep it open long enough so we can get lots of people to counter the results we currently have. Seriously? I am *amazed* about this. Really amazed. In a negative way.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:This is a farce.

  Milton Mueller:According to the summary stats, all respondents were either members or participants in the second poll

  Staffan Jonson:Survey is taking too much time.

  Fatima Cambronero:sorry I am not sure if I am understanding correctly: are will we going to re open the survey because some people don't like the results??

  Milton Mueller:Noone is talking about opening it to "all and sundry" Paul

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Staffan - agree - on both your points

  James Gannon - Security Focus (ind):Restricting the poll to the electred members  would be totally contrarary to the requirement for the process to be open, strongly disagree

  Stephanie Perrin:I am a participant and I have to leave the call...may I please register my vote now....I am strongly in favour of re-opening the second poll. 

  Donna Austin, RySG:agree with Paul, I'm not sure what additional value we'll get from extendng the period.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Of course it would have been so different if other people did not like the result.

  Grace Abuhamad:@Stephanie  noted

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Presuming people give their correct name...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:We have nit decided TO reopen it yet Jonatan!!!

  Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Grace!

  Milton Mueller:Olivier, are you saying the people who didn't vote have no right to express their view? Or are you happy with certain (unrepresentative) results and don't want to see them change?

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Are only the members asnwering this poll or everyone in the call?

  Seun Ojedeji:sorry how are the audio only participants going to participate?

  Fatima Cambronero:@Milton we had a deadline to answer the survey

  Milton Mueller:And let's have no more electioneering, lets just have the poll

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:how do we send the vote?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Just click the box

  Brenden Kuerbis:CLick the radio button

  Matthew Shears:do all see the poll window?

  Graeme Bunton - RrSG:So, click radio button, there is no 'submit'

  Milton Mueller:the box just sits there it doesn'tgo away after you click

  Seun Ojedeji:Please don't let it on yes by default...you may leave it on no vote by default

  Milton Mueller:it was on no vote as default, Seun

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):Hwo do I know that my vote was counted the way I voted?

  Paul Kane:@Olivier +1

  Seun Ojedeji:Honestly i agree with Olivier's view

  Mary Uduma:@ Olivier +1

  Greg Shatan 2:Until the poll closes the box won't go away (and your vote won't be "fixed")

  Christo:CW. Olivier +1

  Grace Abuhamad:@Eduardo -- if you have a button selected, then that is your vote

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:Olivier +1

  Milton Mueller:lets move on

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):Olivier +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Results pleae

  James Gannon - Security Focus (ind):Default was no vote not yes

  Brenden Kuerbis:I think default is no vote.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet, ICG:minse said no vote!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:It should default to No Vote

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):My default when it opened was no vote

  Grace Abuhamad:My apologies

  Seun Ojedeji:it may be a good tool but the purpose it is currently used is not helpful/ideal

  Seun Ojedeji:okay great thanks for sharing the result

  Brenden Kuerbis:What do we know about respondent demographics? E.g., #members, #participants, self-reported affiliation?

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):We have an answer. Let's move on!

  Fatima Cambronero:+1 @Alan

  Seun Ojedeji:yes please lets move on

  Milton Mueller:Really

  Seun Ojedeji:i just noticed the number just changed ;)

  Milton Mueller:The people who don't want the actual sentiment of the group to be known won ;-)

  Seun Ojedeji:although still no difference in the outcome

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):The numbers will change as people click different buttons

  Marika Konings:@Seun - the poll is still open. I will close it now.

  Seun Ojedeji:Okay thanks @Marika

  Christo:The lack of people 'jumping up and down' has something to do with the fact that audio does not work. CW

  Marika Konings:Chairs said the poll is still open so it is open again.

  Seun Ojedeji:please close the poll @marika

  Seun Ojedeji:the number is changing

  Seun Ojedeji:why are we still waiting

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):agree with the usefulness of the poll for such decsions by our Leadership.  less enthusiastic about the meta discussion on the use of polling.

  Marika Konings:@Seun - the chairs will indicate when the poll will close

  Milton Mueller:Seun, you are so funny. Close the poll, the number is changing!

  Milton Mueller:...in a way ou don't like ;-)

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:dear milton that is democracy, change your point of view when the poll is open :)

  Seun Ojedeji:Well in a way i fear is becoming political

  Milton Mueller:I am not worried about it, Erick, Seun is

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:my mistake... :)

  Wale Bakare:There are 44 participants available, i hope the poll captures that before closing it

  Milton Mueller:Anyway, we should stop wasting time on this poll issue, we have a lot of work to do on the proposal

  Chuck Gomes (RySG):The amound of diversity in the surveys is dependent on  participation.  We cannot force participation.

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:agree with you chuck we can't force the participation, but we can take care that surveys will not be "taken" but a only 1 pointof view

  Seun Ojedeji:I agree with Milton, please lets move forward

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):PLEASE, LET'S MOVE ON!   ANd use speaker timer!

  Eduardo Diaz - (ALAC):This is becoming a filibuster

  Milton Mueller:it's the EXternal model, not the Eternal model, Paul. But these meetings may make it seem the latter

  Mary Uduma:+1 @ Paul

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:+1 Robert

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):40:50 is often referred to as a landslide in political elections

  Avri Doria (GNSO/NCSG):hopefully next time we use the polling feature, we dont have to do the meta-discussion again.

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:@Avri - yes this was our initial shot at it

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):tomorrow's call starts at 5-8 am on a Sunday. Not necessarily better for us in NA.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Wecan but hope @Avri

  Elise Lindeberg GAC:Bertrand - agree, we should get some work on the CSC/MRT  ! We van get some agreement there at least

  James Gannon - Security Focus (ind):Just ask that we get the recording up as quick as possible after the call this eveing for those that are unable to attend, as a pariority for staff

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Ohh AlanG  You know what I will say t that!

  Milton Mueller:Let's design the CSC & MRT in next meetings

  Grace Abuhamad:@james as always

  Brenden Kuerbis:Identify the questions with bimodal distributions, and group them accordingly for further discussion this afternoon.

  James Gannon - Security Focus (ind):Thanks grace its appreciated =)

  Grace Abuhamad:we post the recording as soon as we receive it :)

  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):@CLO, not looking for sympathy. Just pointing out that the next meeting is good for some and not others  AND vice-versa...

  Milton Mueller:Agree with Brenden: identify bimodal responses!!!!

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:+1 on Jammes: please make tonight's recording available so that we can listen to it.

  Erick Iriarte Ahon:... i have time to clean my house now ;)

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support:bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thanks  All Bye for now

  Fatima Cambronero:thanks all, see you later

  James Gannon - Security Focus (ind):Thanks everyone hope tonight is productive

  Seun Ojedeji:thanks bye