[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 18:50:33 UTC 2016


Dear All,
Once again I voted in Poll 2 .Please include my name there.
Thomas has confirmed that today.
Awiting for correction pls
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-23 19:36 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:

> I think both sides are playing games with the classification of
> participants in the straw poll, and with spinning the results.
> Let's stop
>
> The results are fairly obvious.
>
> a) there is not a true consensus; we are divided but numerically a
> preponderance supports the change
> b) the board, GAC and ALAC want the threshold for board removal to be
> higher when GAC advice is involved.
> c) civil society / noncommercial almost unanimously do not support the
> board/GAC/ALAC position
> d) business interests support removal of the lower threshold, but not so
> much on the merits but because they fear an obstacle to the transition.
> e) others (e.g. ccTLDs) are divided
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> > Roelof Meijer
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:08 AM
> > To: avri at acm.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
> >
> > Thanks for that Avri, I cannot agree more
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Roelof
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23-02-16 13:30, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
> > behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> > on behalf of avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I do not object to them having been included.
> > >
> > >We are trying to short circuit the negotiation cycle.  To do that we
> > >are being inclusive and should be grateful for the participation of all
> > >who could derail the process.  I see this as a good thing.
> > >
> > >I find this new formalism to be a bit bizarre.  Once we had members
> > >they were too elite.  So we added participants. Now only formally
> > >listed participants count?  This is about the community and the best
> > >consensus we find, not about status quo notions of membership.
> > >
> > >avri
> > >
> > >On 23-Feb-16 13:41, Edward Morris wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> I object to the inclusion in the tally of votes those individuals who
> > >>are neither Appointed Members nor Participants of the CCWG on
> > >>Enhancing Accountability. The full roster of Participants are listed
> > >> here:
> > >>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823968
> > >>.
> > >>
> > >> The participation of staff, other than liaisons, is particularly
> > >> troublesome. The number of Board members participating in a voting
> > >> capacity in this poll despite not being a member, liaison or
> > >> participant of the group is also a problem. Certainly the Board does
> > >> not wish to leave itself open to charges of packing the meeting so it
> > >> would achieve it's desired outcome despite the desires of regularly
> > >> and properly participating members of the community.
> > >>
> > >> The barrier to becoming a CCWG participant is admirably low. The
> > >> process should be respected. I would request all tallies be redone to
> > >> reflect only the votes who have properly joined the CCWG as a Member,
> > >> Participant or Liaison.
> > >>
> > >> Respectfully,
> > >>
> > >> Edward Morris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> ---
> > >> *From*: "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> > >> *Sent*: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:29 AM
> > >> *To*: "Accountability Cross Community"
> > >> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > >> *Subject*: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >---
> > >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > >https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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/dfc05abd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list