[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call

Wed Aug 23 15:45:14 UTC 2017

Tiresome, but predictably professional.

On 23/08/17 16:26, Robin Gross 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
>