<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Once again I voted in Poll 2 .Please include my name there.</div><div>Thomas has confirmed that today.</div><div>Awiting for correction pls </div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-23 19:36 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think both sides are playing games with the classification of participants in the straw poll, and with spinning the results.<br>
Let's stop<br>
<br>
The results are fairly obvious.<br>
<br>
a) there is not a true consensus; we are divided but numerically a preponderance supports the change<br>
b) the board, GAC and ALAC want the threshold for board removal to be higher when GAC advice is involved.<br>
c) civil society / noncommercial almost unanimously do not support the board/GAC/ALAC position<br>
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.<br>
e) others (e.g. ccTLDs) are divided<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> Roelof Meijer<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:08 AM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results<br>
><br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> Thanks for that Avri, I cannot agree more<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> Roelof<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 23-02-16 13:30, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on<br>
> behalf of Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> on behalf of <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> >Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> >I do not object to them having been included.<br>
> ><br>
> >We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle. To do that we<br>
> >are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all<br>
> >who could derail the process. I see this as a good thing.<br>
> ><br>
> >I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre. Once we had members<br>
> >they were too elite. So we added participants. Now only formally<br>
> >listed participants count? This is about the community and the best<br>
> >consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.<br>
> ><br>
> >avri<br>
> ><br>
> >On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
> >> Hello,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who<br>
> >>are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on<br>
> >>Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed<br>
> >> here:<br>
> >><a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968</a><br>
> >>.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly<br>
> >> troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting<br>
> >> capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or<br>
> >> participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does<br>
> >> not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it<br>
> >> would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly<br>
> >> and properly participating members of the community.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The<br>
> >> process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to<br>
> >> reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member,<br>
> >> Participant or Liaison.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Respectfully,<br>
> >><br>
> >> Edward Morris<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> >> ---<br>
> >> *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <<a href="mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org">grace.abuhamad@icann.org</a>><br>
> >> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM<br>
> >> *To*: "Accountability Cross Community"<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
> >> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results<br>
> >><br>
> >> Dear all,<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> To ensure full transparency around the polling, the staff have<br>
> >> reviewed the recording for the call and crosschecked the results. The<br>
> >> Adobe Connect recording is available here for your viewing as well:<br>
> >> <a href="https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/</a>.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Please note that the instructions regarding participation in the<br>
> >> polls were as follows:<br>
> >><br>
> >> · Anyone on the call was invited to participate in the poll<br>
> >> (members & participants).<br>
> >><br>
> >> · To participate, participants in the Adobe Connect room used<br>
> >> either a red or green tick to respond to the poll question.<br>
> >><br>
> >> · Those on audio-only could express their position over the phone.<br>
> >><br>
> >> · After the polls, analysis would be conducted to assess<br>
> >> participation from CCWG members (for the purposes of these results,<br>
> >> the members¹ names are in bold font).<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> The Chairs conducted four polls in a group that varied between 85-90<br>
> >> participants. The text used as the basis for the polls is Paragraph<br>
> >> 72 of the CCWG report (see attached slide for the text as well as the<br>
> >> 2^nd bullet highlighted in red). The first two poll questions were<br>
> >> based on objections and the second two poll questions were based on<br>
> >> expressions of support.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Summary of results: *<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> · 11 objections to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in<br>
> >> red on the slide)<br>
> >><br>
> >> o (2 CCWG member objections)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> · 27 objections to sending the report forward as it is currently,<br>
> >> with the full text in Paragraph 72<br>
> >><br>
> >> o (8 CCWG member objections, including all ALAC members)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> · 36 support removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in<br>
> >> Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide)<br>
> >><br>
> >> o (10 CCWG members supporting)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> · 14 support sending the report forward as it is currently, with<br>
> >> the full text in Paragraph 72<br>
> >><br>
> >> o (2 CCWG members supporting)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Detailed results: *<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Poll #1* Who objects to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72<br>
> >> (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to challenge the<br>
> >> Board action in question²)?<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> 1. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 2. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 3. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 4. James Gannon (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 5. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 6. Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 7. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 8. *Robin Gross*(NCSG Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 9. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 10.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 11.*Eberhard Lisse*(ccNSO Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Poll #2* Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering<br>
> >> Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with<br>
> >> the full text in Paragraph 72)?<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> 1. *Alan Greenberg*(ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 2. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 3. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 4. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 5. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 6. David McAuley (GNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 7. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 8. George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 9. Jorge Cancio (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 10.*Julia Wolman*(GAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 11.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 12.*Leon Sanchez*(ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 13.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 14.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 15.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 16.*Olga Cavalli*(GAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 17.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 18.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 19.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 20.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 21.*Roelof Meijer*(ccNSO Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 22.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 23.Samantha Eisner (ICANN Staff Liaison)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 24.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 25.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 26.*Sebastien Bachollet*(ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 27.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 28.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 29.*Tijani Ben Jemaa*(ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Poll #3* Who supports removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in<br>
> >> Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to<br>
> >> challenge the Board action in question²)?<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> 1. *Alan**Greenberg* (ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 2. Annaliese Williams (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 3. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 4. Avri Doria (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 5. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 6. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 7. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 8. David McAuley (GNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 9. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 10.Finn Petersen (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 11.George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 12.Greg Shatan (IPC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 13.*James Bladel*(RrSG Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 14.*Julia**Wolman* (GAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 15.Kavouss Arasteh (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 16.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 17.*Leon**Sanchez* (ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 18.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 19.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 20.Mark Carvell (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 21.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 22.Mary Uduma (ccNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 23.Niels Ten Oever (Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 30.*Olga**Cavalli* (GAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 24.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 25.Paul Szyndler (ccNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 26.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 31.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 27.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 28.*Roelof**Meijer* (ccNSO Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 29.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 30.Sabine Meyer (GAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 31.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 32.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 33.*Steve DelBianco*(CSG Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 34.*Sebastien**Bachollet* (ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 35.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 36.*Tijani**Ben Jemaa* (ALAC Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> *Poll #4* Who supports sending the report to Chartering<br>
> >> Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with<br>
> >> the full text in Paragraph 72)?<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> 1. Aarti Bhavana (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 2. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 3. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 4. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 5. James Gannon (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 6. *Jordan Carter*(ccNSO Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 7. Martin Boyle (ccNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 8. Matthew Shears (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 9. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 10.Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 11.Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 12.*Robin**Gross* (NCSG Member)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 13.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >> 14.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant)<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> >> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >---<br>
> >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
> ><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
> ><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> ><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> ><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-<br>
> <a href="mailto:Community@icann.org">Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>