[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Tue Feb 23 16:01:50 UTC 2016


Well, we only elect two Board Members. The GAC doesn't elect any (I am 
not counting non-voting liaisons). Half of the Board is not elected at all.


On 23/02/16 15:35, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Dear All,
>
> I do not know what we are talking about
>
> If the process is inclusive, button -up and democratic, we should not
> create artificial obstacle for that.
>
> Apart from participants, I saw some observers polling also but I did not
> raise any point.
>
> I fully respect their contribution even if they opposing to me.
>
> We have had a hard discussion during the last 72 hours. We are somewhere
> let us not break every thing
>
> Pls kindly refrain from criticizing the Board’s members participating in
> the process. We have elected them until they are there their views
> should be respected. PLS BE MORE REALISTIC. when I raise a point of
> procedure about two weeks ago one of our colleagues wrote that “We are
> not in the Parliamentary process “I agreed to that statement.
>
> We now have something that hopefully many and perhaps all chartering
> organization would support
>
> Best Regard
>
> Happy Tuesday
>
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-02-23 15:54 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>
>     +1
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets at itic.org <mailto:ksalaets at itic.org>>
>     *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM
>     *To*: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
>     <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>>
>     *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>     <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>     *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on
>     > behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse"
>     > <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>     >el at lisse.na <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell)
>     >> PO Box 8421 \ /
>     >> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     >>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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