[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Tue Feb 23 18:56:19 UTC 2016


Kavouss, 

The correction was made in the email I sent around 1830 UTC today. You are
in poll #2. See individual #11. We organized these by alphabetical order so
that may be why you didn’t see your name at first glance.

Thank you, 
Grace

From:  <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Date:  Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 1:50 PM
To:  Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>, Hillary Jett
<hillary.jett at icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill
<mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
Cc:  Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

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/20160223/3e07f9cf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20160223/3e07f9cf/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list