[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 18:57:18 UTC 2016
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 at 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 at 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 at icann.org
>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> > Roelof Meijer
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:08 AM
>> > To: avri at acm.org; accountability-cross-community at 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 at icann.org on
>> > behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> > on behalf of avri at 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 at icann.org>
>> > >> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM
>> > >> *To*: "Accountability Cross Community"
>> > >> <accountability-cross-community at 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 at 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 at icann.org
>> > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
>> > Community at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> 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/20160223/146ffa20/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list