[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Tue Feb 23 11:39:37 UTC 2016
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
> 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 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), (“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 2^nd 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ;____/
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list