[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Stephen Deerhake
sdeerhake at nic.as
Tue Feb 23 18:23:47 UTC 2016
FYI I've asked Grace to correct my voting as it was not reported accurately;
presumably she will re-issue the poll results to reflect the correction.
/Stephen
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James
Gannon
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:54 PM
To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
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" <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 <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/d99030ac/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list