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://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/> . 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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)
Dear Alice Thank you very much I was announed three times that my name be included in List 2 . Pls kindly do it. Regards KAVOUSS ARASTEH 2016-02-23 11:26 GMT+01:00 Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
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/.
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 members’ 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
Thank you, Kavouss. We will note that accordingly. Sorry for this! Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 23.02.2016 um 11:37 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Alice Thank you very much I was announed three times that my name be included in List 2 . Pls kindly do it. Regards KAVOUSS ARASTEH
2016-02-23 11:26 GMT+01:00 Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
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/.
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 members’ 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Thomas, As I informed Alice ,during the call ,I supported to delete the red text as well as sending the Report to chartering Organization without that Red text My Name should be in Poll 2 and Poll 3 I am in Poll 3 but not in Poll 2 .Plerase kindly in clude my name in Poll 2 as well. Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 11:42 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>:
Thank you, Kavouss.
We will note that accordingly. Sorry for this!
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 23.02.2016 um 11:37 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
:
Dear Alice Thank you very much I was announed three times that my name be included in List 2 . Pls kindly do it. Regards KAVOUSS ARASTEH
2016-02-23 11:26 GMT+01:00 Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
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/.
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 members’ 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All, we want to ensure to accurately capture the results, so please check whether your position has been recorded and provide feedback as soon as possible. We will send another message to the list with the outcome of our analysis within the 10 hour window we have announced during the call. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 23.02.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
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/.
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 members’ 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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)
<Paragraph 72.pdf> <Poll Results_ CCWG 23 February.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Useful and interesting. Now, please, what does it mean? On 23/02/16 10:26, 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/.
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 members’ 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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
No, that's not what I'm asking, despite its incivility (or otherwise). What I mean, is what do all the votes imply? That there is a consensus in the WG to reject the Board's eleventh-hour intervention, or to roll over and accept it? Which? I remain confused by the psephology involved. On 23/02/16 12:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In my usual civil way:
The Co-Chairs have lost control. Or given it away.
el
On 2016-02-23 13:38, Nigel Roberts wrote: [...]
Now, please, what does it mean? [...]
Thank you very much for your efforts. I SUPPORT CHAIRS Kavouss 2016-02-23 13:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
In my usual civil way:
The Co-Chairs have lost control. Or given it away.
el
On 2016-02-23 13:38, Nigel Roberts wrote: [...]
Now, please, what does it mean? [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
me too i also feel sorry for chairs avri On 23-Feb-16 14:41, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Thank you very much for your efforts. I SUPPORT CHAIRS Kavouss
2016-02-23 13:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>:
In my usual civil way:
The Co-Chairs have lost control. Or given it away.
el
On 2016-02-23 13:38, Nigel Roberts wrote: [...] > Now, please, what does it mean? [...] _______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Dear All, Once again ,some distinguished colleagues started to open another heavy and extensive correspondence in regard with " participants" .Who ever attending a call and is not formal Member appointed by chatering organizations is PARTICIPANT. Dear Co-Chair pls rule out such an unneccessary discussions Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 13:50 GMT+01:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
me too
i also feel sorry for chairs
avri
On 23-Feb-16 14:41, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Thank you very much for your efforts. I SUPPORT CHAIRS Kavouss
2016-02-23 13:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>:
In my usual civil way:
The Co-Chairs have lost control. Or given it away.
el
On 2016-02-23 13:38, Nigel Roberts wrote: [...] > Now, please, what does it mean? [...] _______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, Please explain to Mr Arasteh that there are Appointed Members, Individual Participants, (one) Board Liaison, (one) Staff Representative), (Miling List) Observers, Staff Support, Additional Staff Contacts and (not listed on the Web site) Experts. Can you also please explain to Mr Arasteh that the Charter does not provide for determination of "necessary discussions". There is also no requirement in the Charter to use a Spelling Checker. Can you please explain to me (and perhaps to the bloggers observing this mailing list), why the following individuals participating in the Poll as Participants are not listed as Participants on the CCWG web site at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 (last accessed 2016-02-23 13:15 UTC) Asha Hemrajani, Fadi Chehadé greetings, el On 2016-02-23 15:02, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, Once again ,some distinguished colleagues started to open another heavy and extensive correspondence in regard with " participants" .Who ever attending a call and is not formal Member appointed by chatering organizations is PARTICIPANT. Dear Co-Chair pls rule out such an unneccessary discussions Regards Kavouss
2016-02-23 13:50 GMT+01:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>:
me too
i also feel sorry for chairs
avri
On 23-Feb-16 14:41, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Thank you very much for your efforts. > I SUPPORT CHAIRS > Kavouss > > 2016-02-23 13:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na> > <mailto:el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>>: > > In my usual civil way: > > The Co-Chairs have lost control. Or given it away. > > el > > > On 2016-02-23 13:38, Nigel Roberts wrote: > [...] > > Now, please, what does it mean? > [...] [...[
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG. Members notify the secretariat. They must have a SOI on file. They are then listed as a participant on our website with links to their SOI. It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one if we are to be a truly responsive and transparent organisation. Part of what's going on here is a bit of a culture class, between the old backscratching 'we all know each other' world of internet governance and, as Avri correctly put it, the more "formalistic" approach. This is not a hobby, it is a multimillion-dollar international corporation. Fadi did a fantastic job of professionalising the management of this company. If this corporation is to be granted independence the community needs to make similar progress. There are rules and procedures and they need to be respected. If not, next poll you can expect me to invite 1,500 of my nearest and dearest Facebook friends to the meeting. Actually, no, because I respect the process too much to do that but if the stakes are high enough eventually someone will. Then what? Best, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:05 PM To: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Dear All, Once again ,some distinguished colleagues started to open another heavy and extensive correspondence in regard with " participants" .Who ever attending a call and is not formal Member appointed by chatering organizations is PARTICIPANT. Dear Co-Chair pls rule out such an unneccessary discussions Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 13:50 GMT+01:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>: me too i also feel sorry for chairs avri On 23-Feb-16 14:41, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Thank you very much for your efforts. I SUPPORT CHAIRS Kavouss
2016-02-23 13:32 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>:
In my usual civil way:
The Co-Chairs have lost control. Or given it away.
el
On 2016-02-23 13:38, Nigel Roberts wrote: [...] > Now, please, what does it mean? [...] _______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game. On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please.
Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Chairs, As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter. Thank you, Brett ________________________________ 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: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM To: nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AM To: "el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>" <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>>, "nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>, "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] Poll results Chairs, As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter. Thank you, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM To: nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<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
I also support Brett’s request for Board comment and commitment – and, as Steve suggested whether it is given or not the CCWG should clearly state its assumption regarding such situations. While we remain hung up on a “corner case” that seems so remote that we had difficulty identifying more than one hypothetical situation in which the community would be seeking removal of the Board in its entirely for implementation of GAC advice and such Board action would not be subject to an IRP, we should not take our eyes off the much more probable situation that, based on past and present performance, there will be many situations in which the GAC is unable to provide a consensus view in a timely manner on joining the empowered community in an accountability enforcement action, whatever its nature. As the ALAC also has the option of participating or not, receiving assurance of reduced thresholds is very important if the enforcement powers are to be meaningful and capable of being exercised. Otherwise the thresholds will either require unanimity of the remaining parts of the EC, or simply be too high to be met (recognizing further that, based on pattern and practice, the ALA seems to be the community component most likely to side with the Board when it is challenged). 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 Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:15 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; el@lisse.NA; nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AM To: "el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>" <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>>, "nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>, "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] Poll results Chairs, As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter. Thank you, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM To: nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<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 ________________________________ 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
+ 1 agree Steve On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AM To: "el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA>" <el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA>>, "nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>" <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>, "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] Poll results
Chairs,
As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.
Thank you,
Brett
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM *To:* nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Without even bothering to register as Participant.
el
On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA <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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important. Sent from my iPad On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: + 1 agree Steve On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: I support Brett's request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett's point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2. From: <<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, To: "<mailto:el@lisse.NA>el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>" <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>>, "nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>, "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] Poll results Chairs, As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. I am concerned that the Board's position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter. Thank you, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM To: nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org<http://cdt.org> E: mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner<http://cdt.org/annual-dinner>. This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email> _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Steve and Brett (and James and Matthew). Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important.
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
+ 1 agree Steve
On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.
From: < <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support,
To: " <el@lisse.NA>el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA>, "nigel@channelisles.net" < nigel@channelisles.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Chairs,
As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.
Thank you,
Brett
------------------------------ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM *To:* nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Without even bothering to register as Participant.
el
On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
_______________________________________________ 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
Agreed. Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM To: Matthew Shears Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important. Sent from my iPad On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: + 1 agree Steve On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: I support Brett's request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett's point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, To: "el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>" <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>>, "nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>, "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] Poll results Chairs, As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. I am concerned that the Board's position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter. Thank you, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM To: nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org<http://cdt.org> E: mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner<http://cdt.org/annual-dinner>. This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email> _______________________________________________ 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
Without an explicit commitment, it seems we cannot dismiss the possibility of yet another cycle like this latest one. Perhaps the condition of agreeing to proposed edit? Ken From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Agreed. Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM To: Matthew Shears Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important. Sent from my iPad On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: + 1 agree Steve On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: I support Brett's request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett's point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, To: "el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>" <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>>, "nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>, "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] Poll results Chairs, As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. I am concerned that the Board's position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter. Thank you, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM To: nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org<http://cdt.org> E: mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner<http://cdt.org/annual-dinner>. This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email> _______________________________________________ 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
All: Here's my CORRECTED AND REVISED data and analysis (with a tip o' the hat to Tatiana Tropina for pointing that my data for Poll #4 got mangled). The CORRECTED AND REVISED summary is as follows: *REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)* Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff) Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *3* (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP) *SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"* Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *3* in support (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP) Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *6* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff) Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets@itic.org> wrote:
Without an explicit commitment, it seems we cannot dismiss the possibility of yet another cycle like this latest one. Perhaps the condition of agreeing to proposed edit?
Ken
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 PM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Agreed.
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM *To:* Matthew Shears *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important.
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
+ 1 agree Steve
On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, *To: *"el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA>, "nigel@channelisles.net" < nigel@channelisles.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Chairs,
As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.
Thank you,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM *To:* nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Without even bothering to register as Participant.
el
On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
_______________________________________________ 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
Actually Greg, if you count NCSG, IPC, RySG, et all then you may want to split ALAC into 5, i.e AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO et all. Ofcourse that was "pun" intended ;-) However really if you want to do the analysis, just go by chartering organisations. Either way, the outcome speaks for itself and hopefully we can just accept and move on. Let's not see this as a win:loss situation as it's all about reflecting the views of the community. Cheers! On 23 Feb 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
Here's my CORRECTED AND REVISED data and analysis (with a tip o' the hat to Tatiana Tropina for pointing that my data for Poll #4 got mangled). The CORRECTED AND REVISED summary is as follows:
*REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)*
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *3* (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
*SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"*
Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *3* in support (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *6* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets@itic.org> wrote:
Without an explicit commitment, it seems we cannot dismiss the possibility of yet another cycle like this latest one. Perhaps the condition of agreeing to proposed edit?
Ken
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 PM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Agreed.
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM *To:* Matthew Shears *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important.
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
+ 1 agree Steve
On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, *To: *"el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA>, "nigel@channelisles.net" < nigel@channelisles.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Chairs,
As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.
Thank you,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM *To:* nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Without even bothering to register as Participant.
el
On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Seun, I disagree. The groupings I've used split the whole into discrete stakeholder types. ALAC represents end-users, a single stakeholder type, and it's appropriate to count them once. Lumping the different stakeholder types under the GNSO umbrella into a single blob would be a mistake. As you can see from the voting, the different stakeholder types in the GNSO have different and often opposing needs, concerns and outcomes, which is in turn driven by their significantly different identities. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually Greg, if you count NCSG, IPC, RySG, et all then you may want to split ALAC into 5, i.e AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO et all.
Ofcourse that was "pun" intended ;-)
However really if you want to do the analysis, just go by chartering organisations. Either way, the outcome speaks for itself and hopefully we can just accept and move on. Let's not see this as a win:loss situation as it's all about reflecting the views of the community.
Cheers! On 23 Feb 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
Here's my CORRECTED AND REVISED data and analysis (with a tip o' the hat to Tatiana Tropina for pointing that my data for Poll #4 got mangled). The CORRECTED AND REVISED summary is as follows:
*REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)*
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *3* (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
*SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"*
Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *3* in support (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *6* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets@itic.org> wrote:
Without an explicit commitment, it seems we cannot dismiss the possibility of yet another cycle like this latest one. Perhaps the condition of agreeing to proposed edit?
Ken
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 PM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Agreed.
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM *To:* Matthew Shears *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important.
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
+ 1 agree Steve
On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, *To: *"el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA>, "nigel@channelisles.net" < nigel@channelisles.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Chairs,
As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.
Thank you,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM *To:* nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Without even bothering to register as Participant.
el
On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 10 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff) Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
Avri is listed as GNSO on the poll, on the CCWG's members and participants page, and on her SOI (as GNSO/NCSG/NCUC). Are you trading her to ALAC for a player to be named later? On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
*10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
Hi, Actually, like it or not, I am both NCSG/NCUC and At Large. Have never been ALAC. avri On 23-Feb-16 21:49, Greg Shatan wrote:
Avri is listed as GNSO on the poll, on the CCWG's members and participants page, and on her SOI (as GNSO/NCSG/NCUC). Are you trading her to ALAC for a player to be named later?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
*10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi, Actually, like it or not, I am both GNSO/NCSG/NCUC and At Large. Have never been ALAC. avri On 23-Feb-16 21:49, Greg Shatan wrote:
Avri is listed as GNSO on the poll, on the CCWG's members and participants page, and on her SOI (as GNSO/NCSG/NCUC). Are you trading her to ALAC for a player to be named later?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
*10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Can I be counted under my At-Large membership for balance too =) (/joke) -jg On 23/02/2016, 7:57 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Actually, like it or not, I am both GNSO/NCSG/NCUC and At Large. Have never been ALAC.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 21:49, Greg Shatan wrote:
Avri is listed as GNSO on the poll, on the CCWG's members and participants page, and on her SOI (as GNSO/NCSG/NCUC). Are you trading her to ALAC for a player to be named later?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
*10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think I joined At-Large about 12 years ago, but that must have evaporated in the mists of time.... Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:00 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Can I be counted under my At-Large membership for balance too =) (/joke)
-jg
On 23/02/2016, 7:57 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Actually, like it or not, I am both GNSO/NCSG/NCUC and At Large. Have never been ALAC.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 21:49, Greg Shatan wrote:
Avri is listed as GNSO on the poll, on the CCWG's members and participants page, and on her SOI (as GNSO/NCSG/NCUC). Are you trading her to ALAC for a player to be named later?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
*10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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 All, Let us respect everybody and not making any unfair statements This would put on record misbejhavior and miscode of conduct. Avri is a reputable , repectful and knowledgeable rel lady. Let uus stop here. Some colleagues are really going out of ethics Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 21:15 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I think I joined At-Large about 12 years ago, but that must have evaporated in the mists of time....
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:00 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Can I be counted under my At-Large membership for balance too =) (/joke)
-jg
On 23/02/2016, 7:57 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Actually, like it or not, I am both GNSO/NCSG/NCUC and At Large. Have never been ALAC.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 21:49, Greg Shatan wrote:
Avri is listed as GNSO on the poll, on the CCWG's members and participants page, and on her SOI (as GNSO/NCSG/NCUC). Are you trading her to ALAC for a player to be named later?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
*10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Would love to. But she has exercised her waivers I think. --MM From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:50 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Avri is listed as GNSO on the poll, on the CCWG's members and participants page, and on her SOI (as GNSO/NCSG/NCUC). Are you trading her to ALAC for a player to be named later? On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 10 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff) Not correct, Avri is ALAC, not NCSG
Tick tick tick...with each passing hour and day the ability of GNSO Council to reach informed positions on the 12 Recommendations is diminished. Council has scheduled a call on Monday the 29th so that we can initiate that discussion before departure for Marrakech. After the Co-Chairs announcement on Friday that they were delaying release of the Final Proposal, Council members were asked whether we should still hold that 2/29 call, and I chimed in as still favoring it provided that Council had a decent amount of time (which I would personally envision as a minimum of 48 hours) to review a locked down document. So I again urge the Co-Chairs to take a fork in the road and proceed, and now urge the Board to provide a commitment that is clearly of great importance to many members and participants, because otherwise we will soon need to debate whether the March 9th deadline for Chartering Organization decisions is still feasible. 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 Salaets, Ken Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:54 PM To: Drazek, Keith; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without an explicit commitment, it seems we cannot dismiss the possibility of yet another cycle like this latest one. Perhaps the condition of agreeing to proposed edit? Ken From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Agreed. Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM To: Matthew Shears Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important. Sent from my iPad On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: + 1 agree Steve On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: I support Brett's request for an explicit commitment. Whether that commitment is given or not, Brett's point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION of the CCWG in our report Annex 2. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support, To: "el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>" <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>>, "nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>, "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] Poll results Chairs, As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. I am concerned that the Board's position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter. Thank you, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM To: nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Without even bothering to register as Participant. el On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org<http://cdt.org> E: mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner<http://cdt.org/annual-dinner>. This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email> _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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
I have no problem with this and believe we already have text in our report that requires it. That is, if during the implementation process, a decisional participant intended by the group is no longer to be one, the thresholds have to be revisited (and that means lowered). I should state for the record my very clear understanding that according to our report, GAC *will* be included as a decisional participant in the bylaws. It would only be in the case that GAC objected to being included that it would be removed, and that we would then revisit the thresholds. cheers Jordan On 24 February 2016 at 02:57, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Chairs,
As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers.
I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that matter.
Thank you,
Brett
------------------------------ 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:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM *To:* nigel@channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Without even bothering to register as Participant.
el
On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch up and pitch in, late in the game.
On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree. There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
There are indeed
It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
No gerrymandering, please. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- 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
Ed, why are you wasting your time explaining the concept of accountability? el On 2016-02-23 15:27, Edward Morris wrote:
Disagree.
There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG. Members notify the secretariat. They must have a SOI on file. They are then listed as a participant on our website with links to their SOI. It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one if we are to be a truly responsive and transparent organisation.
Part of what's going on here is a bit of a culture class, between the old backscratching 'we all know each other' world of internet governance and, as Avri correctly put it, the more "formalistic" approach. This is not a hobby, it is a multimillion-dollar international corporation. Fadi did a fantastic job of professionalising the management of this company. If this corporation is to be granted independence the community needs to make similar progress.
There are rules and procedures and they need to be respected. If not, next poll you can expect me to invite 1,500 of my nearest and dearest Facebook friends to the meeting. Actually, no, because I respect the process too much to do that but if the stakes are high enough eventually someone will. Then what?
Best,
Ed Morris
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:05 PM *To*: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Dear All, Once again ,some distinguished colleagues started to open another heavy and extensive correspondence in regard with " participants" .Who ever attending a call and is not formal Member appointed by chatering organizations is PARTICIPANT. Dear Co-Chair pls rule out such an unneccessary discussions Regards Kavouss [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
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/.
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 members’ 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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- 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
+1 On 23-Feb-16 15:48, Roelof Meijer wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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 ________________________________ 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: 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; 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://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/>.
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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- 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://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<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing. Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor. I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise. I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington. Happy Tuesday. Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 ---------------------------------------- From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM To: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing. Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor. I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise. I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington. Happy Tuesday. Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, Dear All, I do not know what we are talking about If the process is inclusive, button -up and democratic, we should not create artificial obstacle for that. Apart from participants, I saw some observers polling also but I did not raise any point. I fully respect their contribution even if they opposing to me. We have had a hard discussion during the last 72 hours. We are somewhere let us not break every thing Pls kindly refrain from criticizing the Board’s members participating in the process. We have elected them until they are there their views should be respected. PLS BE MORE REALISTIC. when I raise a point of procedure about two weeks ago one of our colleagues wrote that “We are not in the Parliamentary process “I agreed to that statement. We now have something that hopefully many and perhaps all chartering organization would support Best Regard Happy Tuesday Kavouss 2016-02-23 15:54 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>:
+1
------------------------------ *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM *To*: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing.
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor.
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise.
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.
Happy Tuesday.
Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
Well, we only elect two Board Members. The GAC doesn't elect any (I am not counting non-voting liaisons). Half of the Board is not elected at all. On 23/02/16 15:35, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Dear All,
I do not know what we are talking about
If the process is inclusive, button -up and democratic, we should not create artificial obstacle for that.
Apart from participants, I saw some observers polling also but I did not raise any point.
I fully respect their contribution even if they opposing to me.
We have had a hard discussion during the last 72 hours. We are somewhere let us not break every thing
Pls kindly refrain from criticizing the Board’s members participating in the process. We have elected them until they are there their views should be respected. PLS BE MORE REALISTIC. when I raise a point of procedure about two weeks ago one of our colleagues wrote that “We are not in the Parliamentary process “I agreed to that statement.
We now have something that hopefully many and perhaps all chartering organization would support
Best Regard
Happy Tuesday
Kavouss
2016-02-23 15:54 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>:
+1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org <mailto:ksalaets@itic.org>> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM *To*: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> *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] Poll results Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing.
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor.
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise.
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.
Happy Tuesday.
Ken
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: > > 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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on > behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of >el@lisse.na <mailto:el@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/. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <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
All: I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them. The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these imbalanced distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure). *REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)* Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff) Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *3* (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP) *SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"* Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *1* in support (NCSG) Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *6* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff) One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for themselves. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
+1
------------------------------ *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM *To*: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing.
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor.
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise.
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.
Happy Tuesday.
Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
Thanks for this useful breakdown, Greg best regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 23.02.2016 um 18:11 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: All: I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them. The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these imbalanced distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure). REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”) Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 10 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff) Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 3 (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP) SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS" Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 1 in support (NCSG) Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 6 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff) One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for themselves. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: +1 ________________________________ From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org<mailto:ksalaets@itic.org>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM To: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> 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] Poll results Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing. Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor. I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise. I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington. Happy Tuesday. Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote:
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<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of el@lisse.na<mailto:el@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/.
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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <Detailed results of 23 Feb Poll - Distribution Analysis.pdf> <Detailed results of 23 Feb Poll - Distribution Analysis.docx> _______________________________________________ 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
Greg, thanks for your great efforts to provide us with the results distribution, but I would like to ask what's the matter with Poll #4. I might be missing something, but why according to your results it is only NCSG? The results that were sent to us in the email (which you are citing as well, when one scrolls down) include not only NCSG: *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) Am I confusing things? Would be grateful if you clarify this. Thanks! Tanya On 23/02/16 18:09, Greg Shatan wrote:
All:
I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them.
The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these imbalanced distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure).
*REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)*
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *3* (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
*SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"*
Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *1* in support (NCSG)
Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *6* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)
One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for themselves.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
+1
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org <mailto:ksalaets@itic.org>> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM *To*: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> *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] Poll results
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing.
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor.
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise.
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.
Happy Tuesday.
Ken
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: > > 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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on > behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" > <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of > el@lisse.na <mailto:el@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/. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <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
Tatiana, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Gmail "clipped" the email, cutting off the rest of the information, and I didn't notice that it had done so. I've now "shown" myself the "clipped information and I'll re-run and repost my data. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> wrote:
Greg,
thanks for your great efforts to provide us with the results distribution, but I would like to ask what's the matter with Poll #4. I might be missing something, but why according to your results it is only NCSG? The results that were sent to us in the email (which you are citing as well, when one scrolls down) include not only NCSG:
*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)
Am I confusing things? Would be grateful if you clarify this. Thanks!
Tanya
On 23/02/16 18:09, Greg Shatan wrote:
All:
I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them.
The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these imbalanced distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure).
*REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)*
Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? *3* (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
*SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"*
Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *1* in support (NCSG)
Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? *6* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)
One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for themselves.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
+1
------------------------------ *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM *To*: "Roelof Meijer" < <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing.
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor.
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise.
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.
Happy Tuesday.
Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer < <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
Stephens vote should also be counted as a members proxy vote. Sent from my iPad On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:50, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina@mpicc.de>> wrote: Greg, thanks for your great efforts to provide us with the results distribution, but I would like to ask what's the matter with Poll #4. I might be missing something, but why according to your results it is only NCSG? The results that were sent to us in the email (which you are citing as well, when one scrolls down) include not only NCSG: 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) Am I confusing things? Would be grateful if you clarify this. Thanks! Tanya On 23/02/16 18:09, Greg Shatan wrote: All: I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them. The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these imbalanced distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure). REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”) Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 10 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff) Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 3 (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP) SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS" Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 1 in support (NCSG) Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 6 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff) One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for themselves. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: +1 ________________________________ From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org<mailto:ksalaets@itic.org>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM To: "Roelof Meijer" <<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> 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] Poll results Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing. Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor. I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise. I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington. Happy Tuesday. Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote:
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<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of el@lisse.na<mailto:el@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/.
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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ 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<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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
FYI I've asked Grace to correct my voting as it was not reported accurately; presumably she will re-issue the poll results to reflect the correction. /Stephen From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:54 PM To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Stephens vote should also be counted as a members proxy vote. Sent from my iPad On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:50, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de <mailto:t.tropina@mpicc.de> > wrote: Greg, thanks for your great efforts to provide us with the results distribution, but I would like to ask what's the matter with Poll #4. I might be missing something, but why according to your results it is only NCSG? The results that were sent to us in the email (which you are citing as well, when one scrolls down) include not only NCSG: 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) Am I confusing things? Would be grateful if you clarify this. Thanks! Tanya On 23/02/16 18:09, Greg Shatan wrote: All: I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them. The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these imbalanced distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure). REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question) Poll #3 Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question)? 10 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff) Poll #1 Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question)? 3 (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP) SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS" Poll #4 Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 1 in support (NCSG) Poll #2 Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 6 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff) One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for themselves. Greg On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> > wrote: +1 _____ From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org <mailto:ksalaets@itic.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM To: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> > 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] Poll results Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing. Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor. I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise. I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington. Happy Tuesday. Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> > wrote:
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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of el@lisse.na <mailto:el@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/.
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
-- 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
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear all, Here are the updated results. Corrections requested were as follows * Stephen Deerhake voted as a member proxy for Eberhard Lisse in Poll #1 and Poll #4. * Niels Ten Oever is part of the NCSG * Numbering was corrected in Poll #2 per Alan Greenberg’s note * Jorge Cancio was added to supporters in Poll #3 * Kavouss Arasteh was added to Poll #2 * Sabine Meyer was added to Poll #2 These edits are reposted for accuracy of the record, but do not change the outcome declared by the Chairs. Best, Grace From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> Organization: AS Domain Registry Reply-To: "sdeerhake@nic.as" <sdeerhake@nic.as> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 1:23 PM To: 'James Gannon' <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Dr. Tatiana Tropina" <t.tropina@mpicc.de> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results FYI I've asked Grace to correct my voting as it was not reported accurately; presumably she will re-issue the poll results to reflect the correction. /Stephen From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:54 PM To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Stephens vote should also be counted as a members proxy vote. Sent from my iPad On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:50, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> wrote:
Greg,
thanks for your great efforts to provide us with the results distribution, but I would like to ask what's the matter with Poll #4. I might be missing something, but why according to your results it is only NCSG? The results that were sent to us in the email (which you are citing as well, when one scrolls down) include not only NCSG:
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)
Am I confusing things? Would be grateful if you clarify this. Thanks!
Tanya
On 23/02/16 18:09, Greg Shatan wrote:
All:
I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting them.
The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed. Having 11 Board members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew the results. I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these imbalanced distributions. The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure).
REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)
Poll #3 Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
10 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)
Poll #1 Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
3 (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"
Poll #4 Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?
1 in support (NCSG)
Poll #2 Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?
6 (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)
One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC" vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should count more. But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for themselves.
Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
+1
From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets@itic.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM To: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing.
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor.
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise.
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.
Happy Tuesday.
Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 > > -- > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) > 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 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Ken,
Roelof et al., if there wasn't consensus for including the second 'exception,' then where did it come from and why was it included in the 19 Feb. draft? This is what's perplexing.
I can only speak for myself: I have no idea, but I never supported it. I was away from work and unable to pay any attention to the CCWG work for approximately 1,5 weeks. Missed the insertion of clause (2) and missed earlier the email discussion on it (if there was any) among the clutter of hundreds and hundreds of (sorry to say) often irrelevant unread CCWG emails. My error, I concur. Reading the 19 Feb draft in preparation of our call and following the very recent discussion on the subject, I kind of stumbled across it and did not understand the content and why it was there at all. Hence my questions to Becky during the call. I judged and judge clause (2) to be an error and am a great fan of removing as much errors as possible. At whatever phase, but the earlier, the better, of course.
Second, the co-chairs and CCWG process clearly aren't following anything close to the classic sense of the term 'consensus,' but frankly, it is nigh impossible to determine what metric is being followed. Indeed, one could easily get the impression we are embracing a floating definition, so to speak, the metric for which is convenience rather than consistency. Hence, it sets the table for confusion and second-guessing, both of which are bait for those inclined to question this entire endeavor.
I agree with the expressions of frustration voiced here, i.e., that process violations are allowed on a frequent basis and then unevenly, with some voices deemed 'louder' than others. I am not arguing for or against the merits of this particular latest debate, mind you, but when the process being employed comes across as 'winging it' - or worse - it raises inevitable questions regarding the overall integrity of this important exercise.
This is a first ever exercise, so I am not sure if “classic” approaches suffice. In my opinion, our co-chairs are doing their utmost to ensure the overall integrity of this indeed important exercise. If we fail in that sense, we have not the co-chairs, but ony ourselves to blame. Best, Roelof
I greatly admire the endurance of everyone involved, including and especially the co-chairs. I would only urge you, however, to absolutely ensure that every participant and organization engaged in this activity is held to the same standard. Doing anything less will make the outcome all the more difficult to justify and defend here in Washington.
Happy Tuesday.
Ken
On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
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 on behalf of el@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/.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello, I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 . The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community. The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison. Respectfully, Edward Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results 0 0 1 607 3466 ICANN 28 8 4065 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE 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/. 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 members' 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 0 0 1 78 448 ICANN 3 1 525 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE o (2 CCWG members supporting) Detailed results: Poll #1 - Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), ("If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question")? 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), ("If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question")? 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) 0 0 1 607 3466 ICANN 28 8 4065 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
Dear Thomas, Dear Alice Tks pls then revise Poll 2 Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 12:41 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
------------------------------ *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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 members’ 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
I agree with this, irrespective of what it means for the outcome. On 23/02/16 11:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello, I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 . The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community. The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison. Respectfully, Edward Morris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results 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/.
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 members’ 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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Edward Morris Gesendet: Di 23.02.2016 12:41 An: Accountability Cross Community; Grace Abuhamad Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Hello, I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community..icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 . The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community. The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison. Respectfully, Edward Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results 0 0 1 607 3466 ICANN 28 8 4065 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE 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/. 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 members' 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 0 0 1 78 448 ICANN 3 1 525 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE o (2 CCWG members supporting) Detailed results: Poll #1 - Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), ("If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question")? 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), ("If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question")? 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) 0 0 1 607 3466 ICANN 28 8 4065 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection. el On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
I do not speak to the merits of the Board's objection. There may be something of a point (or there may not). But procedurally, it is very unfortunate. The Board should consider whether it really wants to sink the ship over a ha'porth of tar. On 23/02/16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
I support the participation of the Board's membrés as participants of CCWG .Why they should be excluded. ONCE AGAIN PARTICIPANTS ARE THOSE WHO ARE NOT FORMAL MEMBERS OF CCWG Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 13:30 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
I do not speak to the merits of the Board's objection. There may be something of a point (or there may not).
But procedurally, it is very unfortunate.
The Board should consider whether it really wants to sink the ship over a ha'porth of tar.
On 23/02/16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavouss With respect, that is simply not true. The Charter is clear on this, and distinguishes Members, Participants and Observers. On 23/02/16 13:18, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I support the participation of the Board's membrés as participants of CCWG .Why they should be excluded. ONCE AGAIN PARTICIPANTS ARE THOSE WHO ARE NOT FORMAL MEMBERS OF CCWG Regards Kavouss
2016-02-23 13:30 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
I do not speak to the merits of the Board's objection. There may be something of a point (or there may not).
But procedurally, it is very unfortunate.
The Board should consider whether it really wants to sink the ship over a ha'porth of tar.
On 23/02/16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________ 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
Eberhard, Check the poll results, it¹s not the board. CCWG members are objecting to the inclusion of section (2). I am offering theory nor explanation, but strangely enough, most of those not objecting to its inclusion are (NCSG) participants, not members of the CCWG Best, Roelof On 23-02-16 13:25, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of el@lisse.na> wrote:
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Roelof, I didn't mean the poll, I meant the Board Objection cum Minority Opinion and Resolution that gave rise to this. With regards to your other messages, I believe that process matters. First of all the Board (and Staff) should not have polled in the CCWG on this issue created by the Board. Secondly that two Board Members (one of them the CEO) do not register as Participant but nevertheless poll as Participants bothers me on principle. Thirdly this is now the second time that we had Consensus on something and a small fraction changes that for us. That bothers me. And not only on principle. el On 2016-02-23 16:07, Roelof Meijer wrote:
Eberhard,
Check the poll results, it¹s not the board. CCWG members are objecting to the inclusion of section (2).
I am offering theory nor explanation, but strangely enough, most of those not objecting to its inclusion are (NCSG) participants, not members of the CCWG
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 13:25, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of el@lisse.na> wrote:
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Eberhard, I don’t think it is relevant at all whom’s objection or what size of group’s opinion is originally at the basis of a majority opinion. It can be a single bright person spotting a problem (or an error, as in this case) everyone else failed to see, for all I care. “a small fraction changes that for us"? Maybe you did not mean the poll, but it is now the decisive factor. Check the numbers; nowhere near a “small fraction” Best, Roelof On 23-02-16 15:44, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Roelof,
I didn't mean the poll, I meant the Board Objection cum Minority Opinion and Resolution that gave rise to this.
With regards to your other messages, I believe that process matters.
First of all the Board (and Staff) should not have polled in the CCWG on this issue created by the Board.
Secondly that two Board Members (one of them the CEO) do not register as Participant but nevertheless poll as Participants bothers me on principle.
Thirdly this is now the second time that we had Consensus on something and a small fraction changes that for us. That bothers me. And not only on principle.
el
On 2016-02-23 16:07, Roelof Meijer wrote:
Eberhard,
Check the poll results, it¹s not the board. CCWG members are objecting to the inclusion of section (2).
I am offering theory nor explanation, but strangely enough, most of those not objecting to its inclusion are (NCSG) participants, not members of the CCWG
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 13:25, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of el@lisse.na> wrote:
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
You are absolutely right. But, our Charter does not say Majority, it says "Consensus" and "Full Consensus" which only leaves "No Consensus" whatever the size of Majority. And hence, I read the poll as "No Consensus". el On 24 Feb 2016, 12:36 +0200, Roelof Meijer<Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>, wrote:
Eberhard,
I don’t think it is relevant at all whom’s objection or what size of group’s opinion is originally at the basis of a majority opinion. It can be a single bright person spotting a problem (or an error, as in this case) everyone else failed to see, for all I care.
“a small fraction changes that for us"? Maybe you did not mean the poll, but it is now the decisive factor. Check the numbers; nowhere near a “small fraction”
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 15:44, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse"<el@lisse.NA>wrote:
Roelof,
I didn't mean the poll, I meant the Board Objection cum Minority Opinion and Resolution that gave rise to this.
With regards to your other messages, I believe that process matters.
First of all the Board (and Staff) should not have polled in the CCWG on this issue created by the Board.
Secondly that two Board Members (one of them the CEO) do not register as Participant but nevertheless poll as Participants bothers me on principle.
Thirdly this is now the second time that we had Consensus on something and a small fraction changes that for us. That bothers me. And not only on principle.
el
On 2016-02-23 16:07, Roelof Meijer wrote:
Eberhard,
Check the poll results, it¹s not the board. CCWG members are objecting to the inclusion of section (2).
I am offering theory nor explanation, but strangely enough, most of those not objecting to its inclusion are (NCSG) participants, not members of the CCWG
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 13:25, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of el@lisse.na>wrote:
So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
Wolfgang
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician&Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone:+264 81 124 6733(tel:+264%2081%20124%206733)(cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi, I do not object to them having been included. We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing. I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership. avri On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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 members’ 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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
This is not negotiation :-)-O This leveraging the 11th hour. el On 2016-02-23 14:30, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not object to them having been included.
We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.
I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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 members’ 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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Excuse me but i was not calling this negotiation. We are pre-negotiation. the negotiation does not happen until after we have completed and shipped and they have decided they can't live with what we have shipped. that is when the negotiation phase begins, and as someone on the meeting suggested today, that could take months. sure, if we have finished on schedule that might have worked fine. At this point we are trying to avoid the need to the formal negotiation phase. The Board is giving us pre-notice of the things that may cause them to force the negotiation phase (i do not expect them to roll over any more than i expect us to do so). We are short-cuttting that by widening the process to include them and their concerns and hopefully find a consensus point we can all live with. avri On 23-Feb-16 15:01, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
This is not negotiation :-)-O
This leveraging the 11th hour.
el
On 2016-02-23 14:30, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I do not object to them having been included.
We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.
I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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 members’ 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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Thanks for that Avri, I cannot agree more Best, Roelof On 23-02-16 13:30, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I do not object to them having been included.
We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.
I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think both sides are playing games with the classification of participants in the straw poll, and with spinning the results. Let's stop The results are fairly obvious. a) there is not a true consensus; we are divided but numerically a preponderance supports the change b) the board, GAC and ALAC want the threshold for board removal to be higher when GAC advice is involved. c) civil society / noncommercial almost unanimously do not support the board/GAC/ALAC position d) business interests support removal of the lower threshold, but not so much on the merits but because they fear an obstacle to the transition. e) others (e.g. ccTLDs) are divided
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Thanks for that Avri, I cannot agree more
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 13:30, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I do not object to them having been included.
We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.
I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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 All, Once again I voted in Poll 2 .Please include my name there. Thomas has confirmed that today. Awiting for correction pls Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 19:36 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I think both sides are playing games with the classification of participants in the straw poll, and with spinning the results. Let's stop
The results are fairly obvious.
a) there is not a true consensus; we are divided but numerically a preponderance supports the change b) the board, GAC and ALAC want the threshold for board removal to be higher when GAC advice is involved. c) civil society / noncommercial almost unanimously do not support the board/GAC/ALAC position d) business interests support removal of the lower threshold, but not so much on the merits but because they fear an obstacle to the transition. e) others (e.g. ccTLDs) are divided
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Thanks for that Avri, I cannot agree more
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 13:30, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I do not object to them having been included.
We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.
I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavouss, The correction was made in the email I sent around 1830 UTC today. You are in poll #2. See individual #11. We organized these by alphabetical order so that may be why you didn’t see your name at first glance. Thank you, Grace From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 1:50 PM To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Dear All, Once again I voted in Poll 2 .Please include my name there. Thomas has confirmed that today. Awiting for correction pls Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 19:36 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I think both sides are playing games with the classification of participants in the straw poll, and with spinning the results. Let's stop
The results are fairly obvious.
a) there is not a true consensus; we are divided but numerically a preponderance supports the change b) the board, GAC and ALAC want the threshold for board removal to be higher when GAC advice is involved. c) civil society / noncommercial almost unanimously do not support the board/GAC/ALAC position d) business interests support removal of the lower threshold, but not so much on the merits but because they fear an obstacle to the transition. e) others (e.g. ccTLDs) are divided
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Thanks for that Avri, I cannot agree more
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 13:30, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I do not object to them having been included.
We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.
I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hello, > > I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who >are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on >Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed > here: >https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 >. > > The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly > troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting > capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or > participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does > not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it > would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly > and properly participating members of the community. > > The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The > process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to > reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, > Participant or Liaison. > > Respectfully, > > Edward Morris > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM > *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results > > 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/. > > > > 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Milton, There is no games and there are no players .People expressing their views, either we agree or we disagree..The results reflects what has happened. Those people saying that half of the Board are not elected, should kindly consider that it is not CCWG who decides about the Board members nominated by NOMCOM We are not mandated to take any action in this regard. NOMCOM with its eight Board's memebrs are part of Bylaws in force. It is therefore totally inappropriate to make such statement Our mandate is clear and discussion on the Members not elected is totally outside of our terms of refernce. Regards Kavouss 2016-02-23 19:50 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, Once again I voted in Poll 2 .Please include my name there. Thomas has confirmed that today. Awiting for correction pls Regards Kavouss
2016-02-23 19:36 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I think both sides are playing games with the classification of participants in the straw poll, and with spinning the results. Let's stop
The results are fairly obvious.
a) there is not a true consensus; we are divided but numerically a preponderance supports the change b) the board, GAC and ALAC want the threshold for board removal to be higher when GAC advice is involved. c) civil society / noncommercial almost unanimously do not support the board/GAC/ALAC position d) business interests support removal of the lower threshold, but not so much on the merits but because they fear an obstacle to the transition. e) others (e.g. ccTLDs) are divided
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Thanks for that Avri, I cannot agree more
Best,
Roelof
On 23-02-16 13:30, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I do not object to them having been included.
We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.
I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally listed participants count? This is about the community and the best consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
avri
On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
Hello,
I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 .
The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community.
The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison.
Respectfully,
Edward Morris
--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM *To*: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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/.
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dearest Kavouss Milton, There is no games and there are no players I guess you have been reading a different email list than me. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project<http://internetgovernance.org/>
Ed, all, As far as I am aware, out co-chairs did not state any restrictions during the call as to who were allowed and who were not allowed to participate in the polls. Everyone was invited to make his/her position known, most did and that’s perfectly fine. To show that in the present tally is just being transparent and respectful of everyone’s participation As we are all aware, our charter is clear on which votes actually count should that become necessary. The poll results show that a majority of valid votes is in favor of removing (2) and is against sending the report with (2) in it. I am sure that the secretariat will present us with an overview showing that. Let’s all now respect this outcome. Best, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: dinsdag 23 februari 2016 12:41 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Hello, I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968 . The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly and properly participating members of the community. The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member, Participant or Liaison. Respectfully, Edward Morris ________________________________ From: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results 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/. 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 members’ 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? 1. AlanGreenberg (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.JuliaWolman (GAC – Member) 15.Kavouss Arasteh (GAC – Participant) 16.Keith Drazek (RySG – Participant) 17.LeonSanchez (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.OlgaCavalli (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.RoelofMeijer (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.SebastienBachollet (ALAC – Member) 35.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff) 36.TijaniBen 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.RobinGross (NCSG – Member) 13.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO – Participant) 14.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG – Participant)
Note that for Poll 3, the total is 38 not 36. The numbers 30 and 31 occur twice. Alan At 23/02/2016 05:26 AM, 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://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/.
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 members 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question)?
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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question)?
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
participants (26)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
avri doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
epilisse＠gmail.com -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Matthew Shears -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Phil Corwin -
Roelof Meijer -
Salaets, Ken -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephen Deerhake -
Steve DelBianco -
Thomas Rickert