People are very confused about timing and facts here. The entire paragraph that contains (1) and (2) was put in at roughly the same time (Feb 15/16), based on the same discussions. The last stable consensus we had prior to that was the top of paragraph 72, which reads something like: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. The “with one exception” and language that follows was put in in response to the Board intervention of 13 February. I have very mixed feelings about this. Personally, I feel that the folks opposing removal of (2) have the more principled argument, looking across the entire history of this process, the special status of GAC Advice, and considering the change from single member to sole designator, and the increased importance of Board spill that results. That said, I also feel that an IRP will always be a better option for dealing with a single issue, that pattern and practice violations that lead to a loss of confidence will not arise in the context of GAC Advice exclusively, and so the removal of phrase (2) creates a corner case that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 9:04 AM To: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>, Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Roelof, Of course, the opposite could apply just as easily. We had consensus on the issue until the Board intervention – after that part of the comment period was closed – and we do not have a consensus to remove that language as requested by the Board. My read from the comments on the e-mail and the chat is that some, perhaps much, of the support for removing the language is based not on the merits of the Board’s argument (since they really made no substantive argument), but on the desire to conclude this process as quickly as possible and the fear denying the Board would extend this debate. Best, 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:49 AM To: el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Where it leaves us, I think is clear. We just follow our common practice: if we have no (rough) consensus on inserting a particular clause or solution in our proposal, we do not put it in. Item (2) was inserted a few weeks ago, we do not have anything close to rough consensus to support that. So it should be taken out. Best, Roelof On 23-02-16 12:39, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Dr%20Eberhard%20W%20Lisse>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of el@lisse.na<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bel@lisse.na>> wrote:
Grace,
thank you.
Dear Co-Chairs,
As mentioned in the chat I had to leave after one hour (of which 22 were taken by a summary, for which I expected an Executive Summary of 2 minutes or less, by the way) as I have to work for a living.
Just for the record, sending it to the SOs is not the same as supporting it, hence your careful language reflects my proxy with the exception of Poll 4 where he only polled as participant but should have also polled my member proxy in favor of submitting as is.
That said, it is disturbing that 11 Board members and even staff participated in the poll.
Never mind the expected outcome from the ACs.
It is however clear that we do NOT have Consensus as required by our Charter.
So, where does this leave us?
el
On 2016-02-23 12:26, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
To ensure full transparency around the polling, the staff have reviewed the recording for the call and crosschecked the results. The Adobe Connect recording is available here for your viewing as well: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.adobeconnect.com_p2ner13u4kd_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=sEgc4DrNBkeAL49eyykm8SqmM6iTeywKYd8TycxiUY8&e=>.
Please note that the instructions regarding participation in the polls were as follows:
· Anyone on the call was invited to participate in the poll (members & participants).
· To participate, participants in the Adobe Connect room used either a red or green tick to respond to the poll question.
· Those on audio-only could express their position over the phone.
· After the polls, analysis would be conducted to assess participation from CCWG members (for the purposes of these results, the members¹ names are in bold font).
The Chairs conducted four polls in a group that varied between 85-90 participants. The text used as the basis for the polls is Paragraph 72 of the CCWG report (see attached slide for the text as well as the 2^nd bullet highlighted in red). The first two poll questions were based on objections and the second two poll questions were based on expressions of support.
*Summary of results: *
· 11 objections to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide)
o (2 CCWG member objections)
· 27 objections to sending the report forward as it is currently, with the full text in Paragraph 72
o (8 CCWG member objections, including all ALAC members)
· 36 support removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide)
o (10 CCWG members supporting)
· 14 support sending the report forward as it is currently, with the full text in Paragraph 72
o (2 CCWG members supporting)
*Detailed results: *
*Poll #1* Who objects to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question²)?
1. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant)
2. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant)
3. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant)
4. James Gannon (NCSG Participant)
5. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant)
6. Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant)
7. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant)
8. *Robin Gross*(NCSG Member)
9. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant)
10.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant)
11.*Eberhard Lisse*(ccNSO Member)
*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)?
1. *Alan Greenberg*(ALAC Member)
2. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant)
3. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant)
4. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member)
5. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant)
6. David McAuley (GNSO Participant)
7. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant)
8. George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant)
9. Jorge Cancio (GAC Participant)
10.*Julia Wolman*(GAC Member)
11.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant)
12.*Leon Sanchez*(ALAC Member)
13.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant)
14.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant)
15.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant)
16.*Olga Cavalli*(GAC Member)
17.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant)
18.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant)
19.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant)
20.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant)
21.*Roelof Meijer*(ccNSO Member)
22.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant)
23.Samantha Eisner (ICANN Staff Liaison)
24.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant)
25.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant)
26.*Sebastien Bachollet*(ALAC Member)
27.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant)
28.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff Participant)
29.*Tijani Ben Jemaa*(ALAC Member)
*Poll #3* Who supports removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question²)?
1. *Alan**Greenberg* (ALAC Member)
2. Annaliese Williams (GAC Participant)
3. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant)
4. Avri Doria (NCSG Participant)
5. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant)
6. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member)
7. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant)
8. David McAuley (GNSO Participant)
9. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant)
10.Finn Petersen (GAC Participant)
11.George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant)
12.Greg Shatan (IPC Participant)
13.*James Bladel*(RrSG Member)
14.*Julia**Wolman* (GAC Member)
15.Kavouss Arasteh (GAC Participant)
16.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant)
17.*Leon**Sanchez* (ALAC Member)
18.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant)
19.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant)
20.Mark Carvell (GAC Participant)
21.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant)
22.Mary Uduma (ccNSO Participant)
23.Niels Ten Oever (Participant)
30.*Olga**Cavalli* (GAC Member)
24.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant)
25.Paul Szyndler (ccNSO Participant)
26.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant)
31.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant)
27.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant)
28.*Roelof**Meijer* (ccNSO Member)
29.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant)
30.Sabine Meyer (GAC Participant)
31.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant)
32.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant)
33.*Steve DelBianco*(CSG Member)
34.*Sebastien**Bachollet* (ALAC Member)
35.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff)
36.*Tijani**Ben Jemaa* (ALAC Member)
*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)?
1. Aarti Bhavana (NCSG Participant)
2. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant)
3. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant)
4. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant)
5. James Gannon (NCSG Participant)
6. *Jordan Carter*(ccNSO Member)
7. Martin Boyle (ccNSO Participant)
8. Matthew Shears (NCSG Participant)
9. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant)
10.Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant)
11.Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant)
12.*Robin**Gross* (NCSG Member)
13.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant)
14.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant)
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=RnhEuBs33sgY9SZq2AffeXFMitJbFj_y7G-VtCzQxdI&e=>
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=RnhEuBs33sgY9SZq2AffeXFMitJbFj_y7G-VtCzQxdI&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=RnhEuBs33sgY9SZq2AffeXFMitJbFj_y7G-VtCzQxdI&e=>