[CCWG-ACCT] poll result and next steps

Tue Feb 23 19:14:22 UTC 2016

Dear Co-chair,

I wish to express full support for the course of action that was taken by
the chair and congratulate you for your, neutrality, impartiality and
frankness.

You did a formidable ruling.

Do not be afraid of any criticism what so ever,

Those statistics contained in your analysis is a clear example of support
to your ruling.

There is no absolute satisfaction .The issue was extremely delicate and
sensitive and properly handled

Thanks

Well-done

Kavouss

2016-02-23 19:28 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Thanks for this and I like to congratulate the co-chairs and everyone that
> participated in this process. It's good to read the section below:
>
> "*We will now proceed and send the finalized report, without (2), to the
> Chartering **Organizations** for approval*"
>
> That is one major hurdle that has been crossed in this process.
>
> Regards
> On 23 Feb 2016 7:14 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Several of you have raised questions and concerns about the process used
>> for coming to a conclusion on the language in Annex 2. We have explained
>> why we have given the CCWG the opportunity to express views on the various
>> inputs that we received, reflect on the potential consequences and discuss
>> a way forward. For those interested in the details, we would kindly refer
>> you to the recording and transcript
>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58721088>.
>>
>>
>>
>> The fact is that concerns with the language in Annex 2 have not only been
>> expressed by the Board, so we would urge everyone to consult the publicly
>> archived mailing list as well as the mp3 and transcript of the call earlier
>> today.
>>
>>
>>
>> We understand and share the view that work in the CCWG has been, and
>> still is, exhausting and not as straightforward or predictable as one would
>> hope. However, work in this CCWG is not like work on projects in a
>> commercial environment – the journey to consensus is painful, lengthy and,
>> yes, it takes detours. Stumbling forward characterizes the
>> multi-stakeholder model and has been part of our work for the past 14
>> months. I guess we would all have hoped that there are no bumps during the
>> last mile, but that is just how our group functions at times.
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to congratulate and thank all of you for expressing your
>> views on this matter. Hearing all views, particularly those that are
>> controversial, adds to the credibility of the product of our work because
>> this allowed all colleagues on the calls to make an informed decision on
>> how to proceed.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the call, we suggested looking at two alternatives, both of which have
>> been thoroughly discussed. We then proceeded to polling and allowed
>> everyone on the call to chime in.
>>
>>
>>
>> There has been a debate on the list subsequently about who could
>> participate in the poll and who could not. You will remember that we
>> clarified that, while everyone could join the poll, an analysis of the
>> results would be conducted after the call. Yet, we wanted to collect all
>> "raw data" at the time of the call.
>>
>>
>>
>> *We have now taken a look at the outcome of the poll and confirm that -
>> focusing on members and participants only and focusing on members in
>> particular - we have broad support for removal of the language in (2).*
>> A statistical analysis can be found below in this e-mail.
>>
>>
>>
>> As such, the updated Paragraph 72 language is:
>>
>>
>> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC
>> may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power
>> is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC
>> consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power
>> will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than
>> one objects, with the following exception:
>>
>> Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for
>> implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either after
>> an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted
>> inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or
>> (1) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question
>> .
>>
>> If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail,
>> the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the
>> Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may,
>> however, exercise that power based on other grounds.
>>
>>
>>
>> The discussion has shown that parts of the group have opted for this way
>> forward after thorough discussion of all consequences of what we had in our
>> report.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some of you might be disappointed with this, but please remember that we
>> always aimed to be as inclusive as possible and to work as consensus-driven
>> as possible while coming to closure as quickly as feasible. That is the
>> co-Chairs' mandate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Today, the CCWG had the opportunity to choose the option to ship the
>> report in its 19 February draft version. It was in the CCWG's hands to
>> ignore the issue that was raised by the Board and supported by others. The
>> CCWG has chosen to take a different approach and the co-Chairs certainly
>> cannot ignore the CCWG's wishes.
>>
>>
>>
>> One final point: Some on the email list have asked questions about
>> decision thresholds if the number of decisional participants in the
>> Empowered Community changes from the expected five SOs/ACs. We draw your
>> attention to the text in Paragraphs 73 and 74 of Annex 2 in the 19 February
>> draft. This text explicitly notes that any change in the number of
>> decisional participants would lead to a reconsideration of the thresholds.
>> A simple understanding of this is that if the number of decisional
>> participants falls, so will the required level of support for those powers
>> that today require 4 SOs/ACs to support their use. This is not changed by
>> the decisions made today about para 72.
>>
>>
>>
>> *We will now proceed and send the finalized report, without (2), to the
>> Chartering Organizations for approval.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Thomas for León and Mathieu (who is on leave)
>>
>>
>>
>> Results of polling from February 23rd 2016 call of the
>> CCWG-Accountability
>>
>> Analysis on the 4 questions with 56 casting votes from the CCWG call of
>> February 23rd:
>>
>> ·      Members
>>
>> o   ALAC – all 5 present
>>
>> o   ASO – 2 of 4 present
>>
>> o   ccNSO – 3 of 5 present
>>
>> o   GAC – 4 of 5 present
>>
>> o   gNSO – 5 OF 5 present
>>
>> o   SSAC – none of 2 present
>>
>> o   Total present 19 of 26 or 70%
>>
>>
>>
>> ·      *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”)?*
>>
>> o   11 of 56 = 20% total
>>
>> o   2 of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8%
>>
>> ·      *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)?*
>>
>> o   30 of 56 = 54% total
>>
>> o   8 of 19 Members = 42%, 8 of 26 = 32%
>>
>> ·      *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”)?*
>>
>> o   38 of 56 = 68% total
>>
>> o   11 of 19 Members = 58%, 11 of 26 = 42%
>>
>> ·      *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)?*
>>
>> o   14 of 56 = 25% total
>>
>> o   2 of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8%
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/a96b3421/attachment-0001.html>