[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Roelof Meijer Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Wed Feb 24 10:56:10 UTC 2016


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 at 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 at icann.org on
>> behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse"
>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>> el 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/.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>>> 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
>>> 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
>



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list