[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call

Wed Aug 23 09:56:42 UTC 2017

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your emails and the increased interest from GAC
representatives in the subgroup. This is very much appreciated and
welcomed.

I would very much like to invite you to share your opinions and help us
improve the text we have in a constructive dialogue during our next call
on August 29 at 19:00 UTC.

Best,

Niels

On 08/23/2017 11:44 AM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> Dear Niels,
> 
>  
> 
> I have read this summary of decisions taken during the call:
> 
>  
> 
> /„Report and transmittal letter unanimously approved as a first reading
> by the participants present with the understanding that there will be an
> opportunity for participants to post a minority opinion statement. The
> rapporteur will communicate this to the list and all such minority
> opinion statements will be due in writing by the next call of the
> sub-group if they are to be considered for inclusion in the final
> report. The next call of the sub-group is scheduled for Tuesday 29
> August 1900 UTC.”/
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> My puzzlement about the conduct of this process only has grown after
> checking the „raw caption“ and the chat transcript of yesterday’s call.
> 
>  
> 
> *1.       **On the adoption of the documents prepared by the “drafting
> group” by “unanimous consent” aka “unanimously approved” as summarized
> on the “outcomes”*
> 
>  
> 
> There is no evidence in the call captioning that all participants in the
> call expressed their explicit support to the documents presented by you.
> The meaning of “unanimous” requires explicit support. Besides “unanimous
> consent” or “unanimous approval” are no decision-making categories in
> this CCWG as far as I am aware of.
> 
>  
> 
> In addition, even if assuming in arguendo that there had been such an
> explicit support in the call, you were aware that a number of members
> and observers of this Subgroup do not agree with the documents.
> Therefore there was and there is no unanimity.
> 
>  
> 
> è/_Hence, please correct the summary and strike out the word “unanimous” _/
> 
>  
> 
> Furthermore, there is not even any instant in the call where you as
> Rapporteur ask the question to the Subgroup whether they are _in
> agreement_ of whether they have _no objections_ to the documents. At
> most there is simply a call for “comments” on the wording of the message
> to the CCWG at the beginning of the call (the end of your first
> intervention).
> 
>  
> 
> Even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be
> considered this was completely ignored and no discussion called on the
> different alternatives. This lack of consideration as a valid
> alternative questions the equanimity in the performance of the
> Rapporteur role. Normally when two or more alternatives have been
> presented the Rapporteur has to take a neutral approach and present the
> options to the Subgroup. This was not done.
> 
>  
> 
> To the contrary, apparently the acceptance of the documents by
> “consensus” was a foregone conclusion during all the call – the only
> discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined “minority”
> opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself.
> 
>  
> 
> è/T_herefore I object to the summary portion that assumes that there was
> “consent”. Such “consent” was not called for during the call._/
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *2.       **Level of “consensus” designation. *
> 
>  
> 
> As said before I take issue with your apparently foregone designation of
> the level of agreement within the subgroup. As Bernie mentions and
> cautions you during the call there are “4 participants in 4 governments”
> disagreeing with the documents.
> 
>  
> 
> Given the lack of an explicit call for agreement or non-objection during
> the call, and even assuming in arguendo such was done implicitly, the
> dissenting position is in my view strong enough to prevent a “consensus”
> from emerging. After all we are not counting heads here, but also have
> to consider stakeholder balance and diversity.  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Needless to say this is a matter of utmost importance where process
> should be absolutely transparent, fair and balanced.
> 
>  
> 
> I feel the actions happening during the last weeks are straying away
> from these principles.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>  
> 
> Jorge
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *Von:*Cancio Jorge BAKOM
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 22. August 2017 22:45
> *An:* ws2-hr at icann.org; Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>
> *Betreff:* AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Niels,
> 
> what is "unanimous" consent? How many participants attended the call and
> how many expressed such explicit support?
> 
> Or do you mean absence of objections? Of how many people on the call?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Jorge
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> *Von:* Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>
> *Datum:* 22. August 2017 um 22:01:09 MESZ
> *An:* ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org> <ws2-hr at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>>
> *Betreff:* [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
> 
>  
> 
> Human Rights sub-group participants,
> 
> On today’s Human Rights call we completed the first reading of our
> report back to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 plenary with unanimous
> consent (documents attached).
> 
> The sub-group does recognize that some participants who disagree with
> portions of the report were unable to attend the call and therefore as
> per the CCWG WS2 Charter Section V this would only constitute a
> consensus decision.
> 
> It was also agreed that those participants wishing to include a minority
> opinion statement in the final report should be allowed to do so.
> 
> As such any such minority opinion statements by participants should be
> available to the sub-group by Monday 28 August 23:59 UTC so they can be
> considered as part of the second reading on Tuesday 29 August 19:00 UTC.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> -- 
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19
> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
> 
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9