[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call

Wed Aug 23 15:36:41 UTC 2017

Dear All,
I do not think that governments ever played and games at all.
Moreover, it is inappropriate to categorize comments made as being silly.
Regards
Kavouss

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170823/17d59db1/attachment-0001.html>