Seun,

I disagree.  The groupings I've used split the whole into discrete stakeholder types.  ALAC represents end-users, a single stakeholder type, and it's appropriate to count them once.  Lumping the different stakeholder types under the GNSO umbrella into a single blob would be a mistake.  As you can see from the voting, the different stakeholder types in the GNSO have different and often opposing needs, concerns and outcomes, which is in turn driven by their significantly different identities.

Greg

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually Greg, if you count NCSG, IPC, RySG, et all then you may want to split ALAC into 5, i.e AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO et all.

Ofcourse that was "pun" intended ;-)

However really if you want to do the analysis, just go by chartering organisations. Either way, the outcome speaks for itself and hopefully we can just accept and move on. Let's not see this as a win:loss situation as it's all about reflecting the views of the community.

Cheers!

On 23 Feb 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:

Here's my CORRECTED AND REVISED data and analysis (with a tip o' the hat to Tatiana Tropina for pointing that my data for Poll #4 got mangled).  The CORRECTED AND REVISED summary is as follows:

REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)

Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
10 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)

Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
3 (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)

SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"

Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?
3 in support (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)

Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?
6 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)

Greg



On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets@itic.org> wrote:

Without an explicit commitment, it seems we cannot dismiss the possibility of yet another cycle like this latest one.  Perhaps the condition of agreeing to proposed edit?   

 

Ken

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 PM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org


Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

 

Agreed.

 

Keith

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM
To: Matthew Shears
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

 

I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important.

Sent from my iPad


On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:

+ 1 agree Steve

On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment.  Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.

 

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, 
To: "el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA>, "nigel@channelisles.net" <nigel@channelisles.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

 

Chairs,

 

As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.

 

I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.

 

Thank you,

 

Brett

 

BrettSchaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM
To: nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

 

Without even bothering to register as Participant.

el

On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch
> up and pitch in, late in the game.
>
>
>
> On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Disagree.
>> There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
>
> There are indeed
>
>
>> It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one
> The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing
> with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is
> minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
>
> No gerrymandering, please.
[...]


--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

 

-- 
 
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
 
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.

 

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community