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=>
Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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=>
Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board? 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 11:07 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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=>
Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to NTIA if they do not have their way here? If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety of the content. In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into the rocks over this theoretical case? ________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: Confusion and my position Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board? 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 11:07 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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=>
That is my understanding. 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 11:19 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to NTIA if they do not have their way here? If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety of the content. In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into the rocks over this theoretical case? ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: Confusion and my position Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board? 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 11:07 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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=>
Just to clarify, the Board has explicitly informed the Chairs that, unless this specific change is adopted, they will refuse to send this proposal to NTIA even though they have no other objections? This causes me to wonder if this is really the corner case we have been assuming. ________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:20 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: Confusion and my position That is my understanding. 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 11:19 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to NTIA if they do not have their way here? If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety of the content. In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into the rocks over this theoretical case? ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: Confusion and my position Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board? 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 11:07 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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=>
I don’t think there has been an official statement from the Board. I was just stating my understanding about the strength of the Board’s feelings Brett 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 11:29 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Just to clarify, the Board has explicitly informed the Chairs that, unless this specific change is adopted, they will refuse to send this proposal to NTIA even though they have no other objections? This causes me to wonder if this is really the corner case we have been assuming. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:20 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: Confusion and my position That is my understanding. 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 11:19 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to NTIA if they do not have their way here? If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety of the content. In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into the rocks over this theoretical case? ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: Confusion and my position Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board? 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 11:07 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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=>
It doesn't matter. This has developed into a bizarre waving of sticks between several groups. As I said on the call, if the CCWG is going to be the group that chose to stand up and walk away from a fight that didn't need to be had, then that reflects well on the group. It is not about winning, it is not about power tripping.. this simply is not an important enough issue to be treated to such tension-building language in my opinion. I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation. I know I'm not the only one. cheers Jordan On 24 February 2016 at 05:19, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to NTIA if they do not have their way here?
If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety of the content.
In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into the rocks over this theoretical case?
------------------------------ Brett Schaefer 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:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: Confusion and my position
Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board?
*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> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:07 AM *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Roelof Meijer < Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>, Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: Confusion and my position
Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it.
------------------------------
*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:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Confusion and my position *Importance:* High
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> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 9:04 AM *To: *Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>, Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>, Accountability Community <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 <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Roelof Meijer *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:49 AM *To:* el@lisse.na; 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 <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 <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_...> .
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
Hi On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:28:49AM +1300, Jordan Carter wrote:
I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation.
I do too, but I confess I'm a little concerned in reading the poll results. To the extent I see a pattern, it is of hardening divisions between people from different constituencies. As I've said, I can support whatever consensus emerges (though like Becky, I think the arguments for one of these positions are quite clearly stronger than for the other one); but at the moment, I have no idea what consensus might emerge. I really urge people to find a way at least not to object to some stable outcome. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I've just done a "distribution analysis" (not as grand as it sounds) of the 4 polls, and I tend to disagree with Andrew's hardening theory (or at least, I don't agree completely). I've posted this in the thread where the poll results were announced. You will see that 10 of the 11 participating structures had members who supported removing clause (2). That seems like a coming together in this particular instance. Aside from the poll, I did see some unfortunate hardening of positions and hardening of divisions. I would like to encourage the members and participants to support the final result of our work whatever it may be. I would also like to encourage the Members to reconsider submitting Minority Statements. Unified support will speak volumes as this progresses. There are parts of this final Proposal I am not happy with. There are battles that were fought and lost, and consensus-building compromises that make me queasy; I believe other members of my stakeholder structure (IPC) would tend to agree. If I were so inclined (and if I were a Member or my structure had a Member able to speak for my structure alone) I could stand our ground (or lick our wounds) in a Minority Statement. Philosophically, that's not my style. The corollary to "Nothing's agreed until everything's agreed" is "Once everything's agreed, everything's agreed." We have to decide which battles to pick and which battles to win, and which exchanges of views to categorize as battles in the first place. In this case, I think the battles we need to win will be best fought with a unified front. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:28:49AM +1300, Jordan Carter wrote:
I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation.
I do too, but I confess I'm a little concerned in reading the poll results. To the extent I see a pattern, it is of hardening divisions between people from different constituencies. As I've said, I can support whatever consensus emerges (though like Becky, I think the arguments for one of these positions are quite clearly stronger than for the other one); but at the moment, I have no idea what consensus might emerge. I really urge people to find a way at least not to object to some stable outcome.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, Those who were the origin of the case and did not vote now that " people were confused2 NO IT IS NOT CORRECT. nO ONE WAS CONFUSED. Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 18:27 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I've just done a "distribution analysis" (not as grand as it sounds) of the 4 polls, and I tend to disagree with Andrew's hardening theory (or at least, I don't agree completely).
I've posted this in the thread where the poll results were announced. You will see that 10 of the 11 participating structures had members who supported removing clause (2). That seems like a coming together in this particular instance.
Aside from the poll, I did see some unfortunate hardening of positions and hardening of divisions. I would like to encourage the members and participants to support the final result of our work whatever it may be.
I would also like to encourage the Members to reconsider submitting Minority Statements. Unified support will speak volumes as this progresses. There are parts of this final Proposal I am not happy with. There are battles that were fought and lost, and consensus-building compromises that make me queasy; I believe other members of my stakeholder structure (IPC) would tend to agree. If I were so inclined (and if I were a Member or my structure had a Member able to speak for my structure alone) I could stand our ground (or lick our wounds) in a Minority Statement. Philosophically, that's not my style. The corollary to "Nothing's agreed until everything's agreed" is "Once everything's agreed, everything's agreed." We have to decide which battles to pick and which battles to win, and which exchanges of views to categorize as battles in the first place. In this case, I think the battles we need to win will be best fought with a unified front.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:28:49AM +1300, Jordan Carter wrote:
I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation.
I do too, but I confess I'm a little concerned in reading the poll results. To the extent I see a pattern, it is of hardening divisions between people from different constituencies. As I've said, I can support whatever consensus emerges (though like Becky, I think the arguments for one of these positions are quite clearly stronger than for the other one); but at the moment, I have no idea what consensus might emerge. I really urge people to find a way at least not to object to some stable outcome.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
Dear Co-Chairs, please advise Mr Arasteh that most certainly (to use a legal term) I remain confused by his advice. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 23 Feb 2016, 21:27 +0200, Kavouss Arasteh<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, wrote:
Dear All, Those who were the origin of the case and did not vote nowthat " people were confused2 NO IT IS NOT CORRECT. nO ONE WAS CONFUSED. Regards Kavouss
2016-02-23 18:27 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan<gregshatanipc@gmail.com(mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com)>:
I've just done a "distribution analysis" (not as grand as it sounds) of the 4 polls, and I tend to disagree with Andrew's hardening theory (or at least, I don't agree completely).
I've posted this in the thread where the poll results were announced.You will see that 10 of the 11 participating structures had members who supported removing clause (2).That seems like a coming together in this particular instance.
Aside from the poll, I did see some unfortunate hardening of positions and hardening of divisions.I would like to encourage the members and participants to support the final result of our work whatever it may be.
I would also like to encourage the Members to reconsider submitting Minority Statements.Unified support will speak volumes as this progresses.There are parts of this final Proposal I am not happy with.There are battles that were fought and lost, and consensus-building compromises that make me queasy; I believe other members of my stakeholder structure (IPC) would tend to agree.If I were so inclined (and if I were a Member or my structure had a Member able to speak for my structure alone) I could stand our ground (or lick our wounds) in a Minority Statement.Philosophically, that's not my style.The corollary to "Nothing's agreed until everything's agreed" is "Once everything's agreed, everything's agreed."We have to decide which battles to pick and which battles to win, and which exchanges of views to categorize as battles in the first place.In this case, I think the battles we need to win will be best fought with a unified front.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com(mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com)>wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:28:49AM +1300, Jordan Carter wrote:
I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation.
I do too, but I confess I'm a little concerned in reading the poll results.To the extent I see a pattern, it is of hardening divisions between people from different constituencies.As I've said, I can support whatever consensus emerges (though like Becky, I think the arguments for one of these positions are quite clearly stronger than for the other one); but at the moment, I have no idea what consensus might emerge.I really urge people to find a way at least not to object to some stable outcome.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com(mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com) _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
As long as the "hardening" is a theory and we need statistics to indicate it is there, I think we should not worry too much about the problem in practice Best, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: dinsdag 23 februari 2016 18:27 To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Confusion and my position I've just done a "distribution analysis" (not as grand as it sounds) of the 4 polls, and I tend to disagree with Andrew's hardening theory (or at least, I don't agree completely). I've posted this in the thread where the poll results were announced. You will see that 10 of the 11 participating structures had members who supported removing clause (2). That seems like a coming together in this particular instance. Aside from the poll, I did see some unfortunate hardening of positions and hardening of divisions. I would like to encourage the members and participants to support the final result of our work whatever it may be. I would also like to encourage the Members to reconsider submitting Minority Statements. Unified support will speak volumes as this progresses. There are parts of this final Proposal I am not happy with. There are battles that were fought and lost, and consensus-building compromises that make me queasy; I believe other members of my stakeholder structure (IPC) would tend to agree. If I were so inclined (and if I were a Member or my structure had a Member able to speak for my structure alone) I could stand our ground (or lick our wounds) in a Minority Statement. Philosophically, that's not my style. The corollary to "Nothing's agreed until everything's agreed" is "Once everything's agreed, everything's agreed." We have to decide which battles to pick and which battles to win, and which exchanges of views to categorize as battles in the first place. In this case, I think the battles we need to win will be best fought with a unified front. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote: Hi On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:28:49AM +1300, Jordan Carter wrote:
I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation.
I do too, but I confess I'm a little concerned in reading the poll results. To the extent I see a pattern, it is of hardening divisions between people from different constituencies. As I've said, I can support whatever consensus emerges (though like Becky, I think the arguments for one of these positions are quite clearly stronger than for the other one); but at the moment, I have no idea what consensus might emerge. I really urge people to find a way at least not to object to some stable outcome. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ 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
However the Co-Chairs resolve this impasse, I would urge that it be done as soon as possible before this process loses any more credibility. The “process” since Friday has been lamentable. Unilaterally deciding to ignore a set deadline, absent any consultation with CCWG members, because the Board that is to be held accountable expresses “concern” after the comment period has closed, apparently motivated by a Minority Statement of GAC members constituting less than ten percent of that advisory body, was IMHO a mistake -- but that decision was made and everything since has flowed from it. And then last night, asking for an ad hoc poll (not a binding vote as set by the Charter), failing to state up front that anyone can participate and not just formal CCWG members representing their SOs and ACs, restricting the informal poll to those on the call (which fell in the middle of the night for western hemisphere participants) rather than conducting it online so the entire CCWG had a chance to register views, counting the votes of Board members whom the accountability issue being debated is designed to constrain, asking the question in four different ways and getting four different results – none of these strange features provides credibility. As a result, we are now not only debating clause 2 of paragraph 72 but what if anything this poll means for the way forward. So far as I am concerned this poll result is only slightly more meaningful than slaughtering goat and reading its entrails. Indeed, that may have been a sounder way to proceed. One of Yoga Berra’s most famous saying is, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” We have been standing at that fork since last Friday and sinking deeper into the muck. The Co-Chairs need to make a decision, recognizing that it will not have consensus backing whatever it is. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:29 AM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Confusion and my position It doesn't matter. This has developed into a bizarre waving of sticks between several groups. As I said on the call, if the CCWG is going to be the group that chose to stand up and walk away from a fight that didn't need to be had, then that reflects well on the group. It is not about winning, it is not about power tripping.. this simply is not an important enough issue to be treated to such tension-building language in my opinion. I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation. I know I'm not the only one. cheers Jordan On 24 February 2016 at 05:19, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to NTIA if they do not have their way here? If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety of the content. In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into the rocks over this theoretical case? ________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: Confusion and my position Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board? J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:07 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /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<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (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=> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4533/11679 - Release Date: 02/22/16
You’re definitely not the only one, I am fully with you on this. Best, Roelof From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: dinsdag 23 februari 2016 17:28 To: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>>, Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Confusion and my position It doesn't matter. This has developed into a bizarre waving of sticks between several groups. As I said on the call, if the CCWG is going to be the group that chose to stand up and walk away from a fight that didn't need to be had, then that reflects well on the group. It is not about winning, it is not about power tripping.. this simply is not an important enough issue to be treated to such tension-building language in my opinion. I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO agreement, and getting on with implementation. I know I'm not the only one. cheers Jordan On 24 February 2016 at 05:19, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to NTIA if they do not have their way here? If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety of the content. In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into the rocks over this theoretical case? ________________________________ 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<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: Confusion and my position Ok, I’ll give you that. But again, should we play chicken with the Board? J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:07 AM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, 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: Confusion and my position Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is so insistent about it. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Confusion and my position Importance: High 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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/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<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (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=> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>
The Board are clearly followers of the Felix Dennis school of negotiation.
You have to persuade yourself that you absolutely don't care what happens. If you don't care, you've won. I absolutely promise you, in every serious negotiation, the man or woman who doesn't care is going to win.
You give the impression that you're willing to walk away ...
Not give the impression. Walk away. No deal is a must-do deal.
So, yes, play chicken by all means. Just don't turn that wheel, no matter what.
participants (10)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Burr, Becky -
epilisse＠gmail.com -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Nigel Roberts -
Phil Corwin -
Roelof Meijer -
Schaefer, Brett