[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Schaefer, Brett Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Tue Feb 23 14:04:18 UTC 2016


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 at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:49 AM
To: el at lisse.na; accountability-cross-community at 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 at icann.org on
behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Dr%20Eberhard%20W%20Lisse>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
el at lisse.na<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bel at 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 at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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 at lisse.NA<mailto:el at lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>PO Box 8421 \ /
>Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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 at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/131fa483/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list