[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Tue Feb 23 18:41:54 UTC 2016 

Dear all, 

Here are the updated results. Corrections requested were as follows
* Stephen Deerhake voted as a member proxy for Eberhard Lisse in Poll #1 and
Poll #4. 
* Niels Ten Oever is part of the NCSG
* Numbering was corrected in Poll #2 per Alan Greenberg’s note
* Jorge Cancio was added to supporters in Poll #3
* Kavouss Arasteh was added to Poll #2
* Sabine Meyer was added to Poll #2
These edits are reposted for accuracy of the record, but do not change the
outcome declared by the Chairs.

Best, 
Grace

From:  <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake at nic.as>
Organization:  AS Domain Registry
Reply-To:  "sdeerhake at nic.as" <sdeerhake at nic.as>
Date:  Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 1:23 PM
To:  'James Gannon' <james at cyberinvasion.net>, "Dr. Tatiana Tropina"
<t.tropina at mpicc.de>
Cc:  Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

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> 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>
>>> 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
>>>>> <tel:%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 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/20160223/47ea370b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Poll Results_CCWG 23 February_updated1830UTC.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 156820 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/47ea370b/PollResults_CCWG23February_updated1830UTC-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Poll Results_CCWG 23 February_updated1830UTC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 122114 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/47ea370b/PollResults_CCWG23February_updated1830UTC-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/47ea370b/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list