[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call

Wed Aug 23 15:26:20 UTC 2017

I was on this call and can confirm it went as the rapporteur states.  

Frankly I find these silly maneuvers and constant games played by some govts to be beyond tiresome.

Robin

> On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net> wrote:
> 
> 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 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>;
>> 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
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
> 
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr