[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Wed Aug 23 11:18:09 UTC 2017
Dear Niels,
Thanks for these clarifications.
The call for screen ticks you mention on the level of support to the “documents” subject to discussion is not clearly apparent from the raw capture and I have not seen it clearly on the "adobe replay" (please see on https://participate.icann.org/p3uljdb65qa/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal, which shows between 8 and 13 participants –besides you- during the call).
On minute 19:10 you asked the group whether they agreed with the process of going forward with the “minority statement” as a way for us to express our dissent – but this in my view is not a call for consensus on the documents for discussion as such. The discussion on this specific point continued another 10 minutes and on minute 28:50 you essentially asked the same question (“We are going to call this a finalized first reading of the documents we want to submit to the CCWG. Next week we are going to do the second reading. And in the meantime we are opening up for one week for minority statements to have them include in the submissions to the CCWG. Anyone got any issues with that?”) and there are a maximum of four green ticks during the replay – the other participants remaining silent and no one on the call opposing (to be fair).
Anyhow, that would amount to "support" during the call on the specific question of how to handle the dissenting positions assumed to be a “minority” one.
But IMHO this does not amount to "unanimous" support from the Subgroup, as I explained before. Therefore I would like to kindly request you to take that word out of the summary.
As to how you presented my alternative text to paragraph 5 of the draft message to the CCWG (" The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community.”, see in my Emails sent on August 16th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call) the "adobe call replay" shows that it was not mentioned and therefore not handled as an alternative.
In fact (minute 7:38 of the adobe replay) what was discussed was a reference to my "disclaimer" (see my message of August 16th: “[…] disclaimer be included in the document, stating that “these responses are not endorsed or supported by the representative of Switzerland who is member of this Subgroup” (the language can be improved, for sure”) – Actually you mentioned me but talked about the Brazilian Government not agreeing with the text [of the draft message to the CCWG I understand] – later at 9:19 you clarified that it was about the Swiss “disclaimer” not the Brazilian one.
Even this was only done after the text prepared by the "drafting team" had been gone through.
Hence, I’m very sorry to insist that even though I had proposed in writing some alternative text to be considered this was not properly considered and no discussion called on the different alternatives. As said, this lack of consideration is questionable. 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 and simply assumed by you and some of the speakers during the call – the only discussion I see is on the treatment of the predefined “minority” opinion maintained by Thiago, Kavouss, Mark and myself…
Kind regards
Jorge
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 12:19
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: AW: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call
Dear Jorge,
We've had a quorum during the call. And during the call I've ask whether people agreed with the text and the way forward, people have shown screen ticks. When i asked whether people had comments or issues with the text, no one spoke up. I think this definitely constitutes a consensus on the call, and I think everyone who was on the call can confirm that.
We have followed procedure to have two readings, which allows for broad participation.
The alternative additional text you proposed was pasted in the chat and discussed on the call. This led to a discussion how such a position could be best facilitated, which led to us going back to the CCWG WS2 charter to follow the appropriate process.
We've worked together long and hard to build the consensus on the text that went into public comment, I hope we can continue to build on that.
Best,
Niels
On 08/23/2017 12:00 PM, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 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<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>;
> ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org> Cc: thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;
> mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk<mailto:mark.carvell at culture.gov.uk>; mcastanon at rree.gob.pe<mailto:mcastanon at rree.gob.pe>;
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>;
> thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>; leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>; Niels ten Oever
>> <lists at nielstenoever.net<mailto: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> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
>> <ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org%20%3cmailto: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> <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<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<http://www.article19.org>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170823/2c4ed6f2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list