[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Tue Feb 23 17:54:17 UTC 2016


Stephens vote should also be counted as a members proxy vote.

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:50, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de<mailto: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<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
+1



________________________________
From: "Salaets, Ken" <ksalaets at itic.org<mailto:ksalaets at itic.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:52 PM
To: "Roelof Meijer" <<mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>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 <<mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>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<mailto: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<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/b05d6d36/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list