[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Tue Feb 23 17:53:55 UTC 2016

Tatiana,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Gmail "clipped" the email,
cutting off the rest of the information, and I didn't notice that it had
done so.  I've now "shown" myself the "clipped information and I'll re-run
and repost my data.

Greg

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
wrote:

> Greg,
>
> thanks for your great efforts to provide us with the results distribution,
> but I would like to ask what's the matter with Poll #4. I might be missing
> something, but why according to your results it is only NCSG? The results
> that were sent to us in the email (which you are citing as well, when one
> scrolls down) include not only NCSG:
>
> *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)
>
> Am I confusing things? Would be grateful if you clarify this.
> Thanks!
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On 23/02/16 18:09, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> 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>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>
>> 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
>> <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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/20160223/14482afe/attachment-0001.html>