[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Wed Aug 23 10:00:30 UTC 2017
Dear Niels,
I would like to kindly request you to answer the specific issues and requests made in my Email or to provide factual information that prove them wrong.
Referring to a subsequent call (where, as you well know, I am not able to participate) is really missing the point of all of this and a not very diplomatic way of ignoring requests and proposals based on what is on the record of this Subgroup.
Thanks in advance for a proper and detailed answer and regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 11:57
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-hr at icann.org
Cc: thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br; mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk; mcastanon at rree.gob.pe; kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com; jordan at internetnz.net.nz; thomas at rickert.net; leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
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
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list