[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Tue Feb 23 17:09:07 UTC 2016

All:

I'd like to offer an observation on the polls and a path to interpreting
them.

The distribution of voters among groups was fairly skewed.  Having 11 Board
members present (and voting) was remarkable, but there were other
imbalances in stakeholder structure representation that also tended to skew
the results.  I prepared the attached charts to track and control for these
imbalanced distributions.  The bottom line is that support for the 4 polls
was as follows, if broken down by stakeholder structure (i.e., without
giving weight to multiple votes from the same structure).

*REMOVING THE LANGUAGE (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board
action in question”)*

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”)?
*10* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, NCSG, RySG, RrSG, BC, IPC, Board, Staff)

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”)?
*3* (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)

*SENDING THE REPORT "AS IS"*

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* in support (NCSG)

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)?
*6* (GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, RySG, Board, Staff)

One can parse the data further, and one can decide how to deal with split
structures (e.g., 2 of 3 structures having participants objecting to
removing the language in Poll #1 also had participants supporting removing
the language) and with whether Steve DelBianco should be counted as a "BC"
vote when he was voting as the appointed representative of the CSG, and
whether Staff votes should count at all and whether Member votes should
count more.  But I decided to keep it simple and let the data speak for
themselves.

Greg

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets at itic.org>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM
> *To*: "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
> *Cc*: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/f1cf7349/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Detailed results of 23 Feb Poll - Distribution Analysis.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 357532 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/f1cf7349/Detailedresultsof23FebPoll-DistributionAnalysis-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Detailed results of 23 Feb Poll - Distribution Analysis.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/f1cf7349/Detailedresultsof23FebPoll-DistributionAnalysis-0001.docx>