[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Tue Feb 23 18:42:46 UTC 2016

Seun,

I disagree.  The groupings I've used split the whole into discrete
stakeholder types.  ALAC represents end-users, a single stakeholder type,
and it's appropriate to count them once.  Lumping the different stakeholder
types under the GNSO umbrella into a single blob would be a mistake.  As
you can see from the voting, the different stakeholder types in the GNSO
have different and often opposing needs, concerns and outcomes, which is in
turn driven by their significantly different identities.

Greg

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Actually Greg, if you count NCSG, IPC, RySG, et all then you may want to
> split ALAC into 5, i.e AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO et all.
>
> Ofcourse that was "pun" intended ;-)
>
> However really if you want to do the analysis, just go by chartering
> organisations. Either way, the outcome speaks for itself and hopefully we
> can just accept and move on. Let's not see this as a win:loss situation as
> it's all about reflecting the views of the community.
>
> Cheers!
> On 23 Feb 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> Here's my CORRECTED AND REVISED data and analysis (with a tip o' the hat
>> to Tatiana Tropina for pointing that my data for Poll #4 got mangled).  The
>> CORRECTED AND REVISED summary is as follows:
>>
>> *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)?
>> *3* in support (ccNSO, NCSG, ISPCP)
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets at itic.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Without an explicit commitment, it seems we cannot dismiss the
>>> possibility of yet another cycle like this latest one.  Perhaps the
>>> condition of agreeing to proposed edit?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Drazek,
>>> Keith
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 PM
>>> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James
>>> Gannon
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:45 PM
>>> *To:* Matthew Shears
>>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will also pile in on this in support of the request. This is important.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 17:43, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> + 1 agree Steve
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2016 4:15 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>>>
>>> I support Brett’s request for an explicit commitment.  Whether that
>>> commitment is given or not, Brett’s point should be noted as an ASSUMPTION
>>> of the CCWG in our report Annex 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>>> "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 8:57 AMthis one in support,
>>> *To: *"el at lisse.NA" <el at lisse.NA>, "nigel at channelisles.net" <
>>> nigel at channelisles.net>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chairs,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I mentioned in the call last night, before any final announcement is
>>> made, I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment
>>> from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a
>>> decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the
>>> thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC
>>> unanimous support to exercise those powers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am concerned that the Board’s position on the GAC carve-out reference
>>> Board recall, could/would be equally applied to the above situation. I
>>> believe now, before a final decision is made, is the time to clarify that
>>> matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *BrettSchaefer*
>>>
>>> * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
>>> and Foreign Policy*
>>> The Heritage Foundation
>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>>> Washington, DC 20002
>>> 202-608-6097
>>> heritage.org
>>>
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dr
>>> Eberhard W Lisse
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:41 AM
>>> *To:* nigel at channelisles.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Without even bothering to register as Participant.
>>>
>>> el
>>>
>>> On 2016-02-23 15:36, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>> > I'm also puzzled as to how Board Members, and the CEO, can simply pitch
>>> > up and pitch in, late in the game.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 23/02/16 13:27, Edward Morris wrote:
>>> >> Disagree.
>>> >> There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG.
>>> >
>>> > There are indeed
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one
>>> > The fact that the requirement is minimal is no excuse for dispensing
>>> > with it extrajudicially. In fact, it's no excuse at all, since if it is
>>> > minimal, anyone who wanted to be Participant has a very low hurdle.
>>> >
>>> > No gerrymandering, please.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>>> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
>>>
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
>>>
>>> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160223/5d42d63f/attachment-0001.html>