[CCWG-ACCT] Poll results

[epilisse at gmail.com]

You are absolutely right.

But, our Charter does not say Majority, it says "Consensus" and "Full Consensus" which only leaves "No Consensus" whatever the size of Majority.

And hence, I read the poll as "No Consensus".

el

On 24 Feb 2016, 12:36 +0200, Roelof Meijer<Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>, wrote:
> Eberhard,
>  
> I don’t think it is relevant at all whom’s objection or what size of
> group’s opinion is originally at the basis of a majority opinion. It can
> be a single bright person spotting a problem (or an error, as in this
> case) everyone else failed to see, for all I care.
>  
> “a small fraction changes that for us"? Maybe you did not mean the poll,
> but it is now the decisive factor. Check the numbers; nowhere near a
> “small fraction”
>  
> Best,
>  
> Roelof
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 23-02-16 15:44, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse"<el at lisse.NA>wrote:
>  
> > Roelof,
> >  
> > I didn't mean the poll, I meant the Board Objection cum Minority
> > Opinion and Resolution that gave rise to this.
> >  
> > With regards to your other messages, I believe that process matters.
> >  
> > First of all the Board (and Staff) should not have polled in the CCWG
> > on this issue created by the Board.
> >  
> > Secondly that two Board Members (one of them the CEO) do not register
> > as Participant but nevertheless poll as Participants bothers me on
> > principle.
> >  
> > Thirdly this is now the second time that we had Consensus on something
> > and a small fraction changes that for us. That bothers me. And not
> > only on principle.
> >  
> > el
> >  
> > On 2016-02-23 16:07, Roelof Meijer wrote:
> > > Eberhard,
> > >  
> > > Check the poll results, it¹s not the board. CCWG members are
> > > objecting to the inclusion of section (2).
> > >  
> > > I am offering theory nor explanation, but strangely enough, most of
> > > those not objecting to its inclusion are (NCSG) participants, not
> > > members of the CCWG
> > >  
> > > Best,
> > >  
> > > Roelof
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > On 23-02-16 13:25, "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:
> > >  
> > > > So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > el
> > > >  
> > > > On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> > > > > My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough
> > > > > to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed
> > > > > 99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining
> > > > > controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.
> > > > >  
> > > > > Wolfgang
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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:+264%2081%20124%206733)(cell)
> > PO Box 8421 \ /
> > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> >  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160224/34e4617d/attachment.html>