[CCWG-ACCT] poll result and next steps

Tue Feb 23 19:21:30 UTC 2016

Dear Thomas
We are not rediscussing the Report.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-23 20:14 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

>
> 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/bcc94439/attachment-0001.html>