ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
TimestampWhat is your preferred chair structure for the ICG?Rationale for preference stated above:Are there any chair structures you cannot live with?Your name:
2
7/25/2014 14:00:28One chair with one alternate chairGiven a group of 30 people, a chair and an alternate seems like plenty of leadership. That said, I can live with either two or three chairs.Russ Housley
3
7/25/2014 14:21:41One chair with two alternate chairsI think we should have one and only one chair that is to make calls on consensus etc. That individual must though be able to discuss issues with and delegate tasks to some other people that are accepted as fulfilling the roles of the chair. Of course, it should still be possible for the chair or otherwise to have other individuals having "a leading role" (for example for a document, sub-task etc) but the set of chairs with alternates would make our life so much easier.Patrik Fältström
4
7/25/2014 16:30:26Three co-chairsDistribution of work load, balance of power among different stakeholder groups/perspectives.

I can live with any of the alternatives as long as the "one chair" is someone efficient, fair, trusted.
Milton Mueller
5
7/25/2014 18:34:36Two co-chairsSpread work in a manageable mannerThree co-chairsJon Nevett
6
7/26/2014 4:42:46One chair with two alternate chairsBest mix between expediency and optics. Also practical pre-agreed back-up.Three co-chairs, Two co-chairsDaniel Karrenberg
7
7/26/2014 10:10:57Two co-chairs- workload sharing
- I've experienced good working with co-chairs in other Teams
- geographical/gender diversity could be covered if requested
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
8
7/27/2014 6:02:01Three co-chairsEnsuring Balance, Diversity and future acceptance of the outcomes of the ICG due to the political sensitivity and current perceptions about transitions.Two co-chairs, One chair with one alternate chair, One chair with two alternate chairsMohamed El Bashir
9
7/28/2014 14:19:19One chair with one alternate chairI believe that the amount of work that the Chair(s) will be required to do can be reasonably handled by two people. The ICG seems to be at consensus (or very close to it) that Alissa should be the Chair so that consensus should be finalized. If this is done, then the group only needs to finalize the selection of one Alternate Chair.

If the ICG were to choose to have 3 people as chair(s)/alternates, this would likely cause a substantial use of ICG time to select the set of people (e.g., discussions over balancing the Chairs(s), communities represented & those not, etc.) instead of doing the actual work that is expected of the ICG.

The people that make up the ICG only have a limited amount of time as well as a short schedule so I suggest that the ICG focus on the work to be done rather than administrative (or political) details.
Russ Mundy
10
7/28/2014 15:23:34One chair with one alternate chairTo avoid politicizing the position of the Chair who is just a lead without any executive powers.
I see the Chair as just a moderator of the group and nothing more.
The chair is operational servant of the group working with the Secretariat to keep the train running (as coined during London meeting). Being adhoc in nature a Group, why build elaborate structure? For smooth, focused and productive outcomes, devoid of bureaucratic bottle necks, ICG should go with one and only one Chair.
All decisions would rest on the group not on the Chair.
Well, the Alternate Chair (if the group must have one), is just a back up should the Chair not be available for any reason, to chair the meeting.
The Group needs to be focused on its substantive work and not adding a different layer of group of persons it would be struggling with constituency, gender, geographic, etc balancing in selecting. I see the Co-Chairs struggling with consulting widely with their communities to reach the simplistic action of that layer of the ICG, if we go that route.
Three co-chairs, Two co-chairs, One chair with two alternate chairsMary Uduma
11
7/28/2014 21:32:16Three co-chairsThis is the structure agreed at the f-f meeting, and the subsequent revision of that decision has been challenged. I feel the f-f meeting decision must have precedence under these circumstances. Paul Wilson
12
7/29/2014 12:54:37Two co-chairsProvides enough resources to keep the trains running on time without having coordination among the chairs itself become additional overhead.Alissa Cooper
13
7/29/2014 12:58:07One chair with two alternate chairsThree co-chairs, Two co-chairs, One chair with one alternate chairHartmut Glaser
14
7/29/2014 13:19:07Two co-chairsThree co-chairs seems cumbersome, and would reinforce the misconception that thte ICG is a representative group.James Bladel
15
7/29/2014 13:50:55One chair with one alternate chair- I think it is very important to keep the "management structure" lightweight given our task and the limited life of our group and remit. This is not a complex operating or management structure and we should try to avoid over-complicating it.
- We can always adjust later if need be - and we always have the option of assigning "leads" for specific pieces of work if the chair load becomes too heavy.
- I feel strongly we should avoid any action that risks (further) politicizing this role or our work together.
- I fear that 3 co-chairs will add to the politicization, and significantly increase the complexity of this appointment.
Three co-chairsLynn St.Amour
16
7/29/2014 16:07:22Three co-chairsReport of decision taken by ICG in London.

A single Chair is only acceptable if she/he is NOT from one of the IANA constituencies.In view of the preponderance of US corporate and other interests in the ICG, it would not be acceptable internationally for the Chair to be an US citizen, or employed by a US corporation.

If necessary, a Chair external to the present membership of ICG could be co-opted.
Two co-chairs, One chair with one alternate chair, One chair with two alternate chairsChristopher Wilkinson
17
7/30/2014 4:48:12Three co-chairsThe co-chair approach introduces a degree of concensus operation in the overall committee framework that I like. I would like certain rules for selection - that all three should come from different backgrounds (whether by different elements of the IANA function users or by different types of key stakeholder or (best of all) diversity in both).Martin Boyle
18
7/30/2014 11:06:50One chair with two alternate chairsBetter organization in a hierarchy.Joe Alhadeff
19
7/30/2014 12:56:45Three co-chairsIt allows diversity and ease consensus process in case hard call on consensus decision.Adiel Akplogan
20
7/30/2014 22:20:50Three co-chairsSharing the workloadKeith Davidson
21
7/31/2014 3:23:39Two co-chairsLoad sharing of work load. Balance.Lars-Johan Liman
22
7/31/2014 6:42:19Three co-chairsBetter balance of effort. Narelle Clark
23
7/31/2014 8:22:40One chair with one alternate chairLets keep it simple.Jari Arkko
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100