[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Thomas Rickert thomas at rickert.net
Tue Feb 23 10:41:38 UTC 2016


All,
we want to ensure to accurately capture the results, so please check whether your position has been recorded and provide feedback as soon as possible. 

We will send another message to the list with the outcome of our analysis within the 10 hour window we have announced during the call.

Kind regards,
Thomas

---
rickert.net


> Am 23.02.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>:
> 
> 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 members’ 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
>  
> 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 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)?
>  
> 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)
>  
>  
> 
> <Paragraph 72.pdf>
> <Poll Results_ CCWG 23 February.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160223/059e4858/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list