Re: [soac-mapo] Results of doodle poll

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just reading these various comments makes it clear to me that this poll is not 
satisfactory as it stands.

For example, I did not have the same understanding as Robin when going about my 
vote. I voted for those issues that I thought were most important, not those 
issues that seemed unresolved.

I understand Robin's approach (and Milton's and Avri's for that matter), but as 
we have all interpreted the poll questions differently, I do not think the poll 
results are of any real use.

I would not want to delay the group's work in any way, but I think any poll 
that we do has to be totally unambiguous. For example, the first column says 
"Use of morality and public order terms". I understood that as being the 
following question: "are you OK with the use of those terms". But is that what 
the poll was really asking?

Stéphane

Le 6 sept. 2010 à 22:00, Robin Gross a écrit :

> I wasn't quite sure what "voting for an issue" meant either, but did 
> participate in the poll.
> 
> I voted for issues that seemed unresolved or where widespread disagreement 
> seems to remain.  But just because I didn't "vote for an issue" doesn't mean 
> we drop it.  For example, I did not vote for the "Independent Objector" issue 
> because the conversation during our previous calls seemed to indicate 
> agreement that we don't want such an objector.  My vote should not be 
> interpreted to mean that I no longer think it important to change this 
> policy, but only that the group seems to have already resolved that issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Sep 6, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> I have to agree with Stephane’s original observation. Although I did vote, I 
>> did not feel confident about any selection and was not sure what voting for 
>> an “issue” meant exactly.
>> Some of the most important “issues” to me – such as whether MAPO or 
>> “sensitivity”-based objections are based on standards or are just arbitrary; 
>> or whether other basic policy recommendations are mitigated or overridden – 
>> aren’t even on the list.
>>  
>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
>> Of Stephane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 2:35 PM
>> To: Marika Konings
>> Cc: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Results of doodle poll
>>  
>> Marika,
>>  
>> I found the poll confusing in many ways so did not initially take part. 
>> However, having given this some more thought, I would like to add my vote 
>> for some categories. Could you therefore please add an "ok" vote from me in 
>> columns 1,2,3,4,5 and 7 on the spreadsheet please?
>>  
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Directeur général / General manager
>>  
>> INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names
>>  
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> Le 6 sept. 2010 à 20:11, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Please find attached the results of the doodle poll for review and 
>> discussion on the CWG Rec 6 WG meeting later today.
>> 
>> With best regards,
>> 
>> Marika
>> <Doodle results Rec 6 WG.xls.pdf>
>> <Doodle results Rec 6 WG.xls>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>