[CCWG-ACCT] poll result and next steps

Tue Feb 23 18:28:42 UTC 2016

Thanks for this and I like to congratulate the co-chairs and everyone that
participated in this process. It's good to read the section below:

"*We will now proceed and send the finalized report, without (2), to the
Chartering **Organizations** for approval*"

That is one major hurdle that has been crossed in this process.

Regards
On 23 Feb 2016 7:14 p.m., "Thomas Rickert" <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> Several of you have raised questions and concerns about the process used
> for coming to a conclusion on the language in Annex 2. We have explained
> why we have given the CCWG the opportunity to express views on the various
> inputs that we received, reflect on the potential consequences and discuss
> a way forward. For those interested in the details, we would kindly refer
> you to the recording and transcript
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58721088>.
>
>
>
> The fact is that concerns with the language in Annex 2 have not only been
> expressed by the Board, so we would urge everyone to consult the publicly
> archived mailing list as well as the mp3 and transcript of the call earlier
> today.
>
>
>
> We understand and share the view that work in the CCWG has been, and still
> is, exhausting and not as straightforward or predictable as one would
> hope. However, work in this CCWG is not like work on projects in a
> commercial environment – the journey to consensus is painful, lengthy and,
> yes, it takes detours. Stumbling forward characterizes the
> multi-stakeholder model and has been part of our work for the past 14
> months. I guess we would all have hoped that there are no bumps during the
> last mile, but that is just how our group functions at times.
>
>
>
> We would like to congratulate and thank all of you for expressing your
> views on this matter. Hearing all views, particularly those that are
> controversial, adds to the credibility of the product of our work because
> this allowed all colleagues on the calls to make an informed decision on
> how to proceed.
>
>
>
> On the call, we suggested looking at two alternatives, both of which have
> been thoroughly discussed. We then proceeded to polling and allowed
> everyone on the call to chime in.
>
>
>
> There has been a debate on the list subsequently about who could
> participate in the poll and who could not. You will remember that we
> clarified that, while everyone could join the poll, an analysis of the
> results would be conducted after the call. Yet, we wanted to collect all
> "raw data" at the time of the call.
>
>
>
> *We have now taken a look at the outcome of the poll and confirm that -
> focusing on members and participants only and focusing on members in
> particular - we have broad support for removal of the language in (2).* A
> statistical analysis can be found below in this e-mail.
>
>
>
> As such, the updated Paragraph 72 language is:
>
>
> The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC
> may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power
> is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC
> consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power
> will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than
> one objects, with the following exception:
>
> Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for
> implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either after
> an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted
> inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or
> (1) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question
> .
>
> If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail,
> the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the
> Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may,
> however, exercise that power based on other grounds.
>
>
>
> The discussion has shown that parts of the group have opted for this way
> forward after thorough discussion of all consequences of what we had in our
> report.
>
>
>
> Some of you might be disappointed with this, but please remember that we
> always aimed to be as inclusive as possible and to work as consensus-driven
> as possible while coming to closure as quickly as feasible. That is the
> co-Chairs' mandate.
>
>
>
> Today, the CCWG had the opportunity to choose the option to ship the
> report in its 19 February draft version. It was in the CCWG's hands to
> ignore the issue that was raised by the Board and supported by others. The
> CCWG has chosen to take a different approach and the co-Chairs certainly
> cannot ignore the CCWG's wishes.
>
>
>
> One final point: Some on the email list have asked questions about
> decision thresholds if the number of decisional participants in the
> Empowered Community changes from the expected five SOs/ACs. We draw your
> attention to the text in Paragraphs 73 and 74 of Annex 2 in the 19 February
> draft. This text explicitly notes that any change in the number of
> decisional participants would lead to a reconsideration of the thresholds.
> A simple understanding of this is that if the number of decisional
> participants falls, so will the required level of support for those powers
> that today require 4 SOs/ACs to support their use. This is not changed by
> the decisions made today about para 72.
>
>
>
> *We will now proceed and send the finalized report, without (2), to the
> Chartering Organizations for approval.*
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Thomas for León and Mathieu (who is on leave)
>
>
>
> Results of polling from February 23rd 2016 call of the CCWG-Accountability
>
> Analysis on the 4 questions with 56 casting votes from the CCWG call of
> February 23rd:
>
> ·      Members
>
> o   ALAC – all 5 present
>
> o   ASO – 2 of 4 present
>
> o   ccNSO – 3 of 5 present
>
> o   GAC – 4 of 5 present
>
> o   gNSO – 5 OF 5 present
>
> o   SSAC – none of 2 present
>
> o   Total present 19 of 26 or 70%
>
>
>
> ·      *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”)?*
>
> o   11 of 56 = 20% total
>
> o   2 of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8%
>
> ·      *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)?*
>
> o   30 of 56 = 54% total
>
> o   8 of 19 Members = 42%, 8 of 26 = 32%
>
> ·      *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”)?*
>
> o   38 of 56 = 68% total
>
> o   11 of 19 Members = 58%, 11 of 26 = 42%
>
> ·      *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)?*
>
> o   14 of 56 = 25% total
>
> o   2 of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8%
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160223/2f9fb2e0/attachment-0001.html>