[Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call

Sun Sep 3 20:26:38 UTC 2017

I whole heartedly disagree. Any government which oppresses civil society domestically cannot be expected to embrace a multistakeholder process that explicitly empowers civil society. It is in their interest to see such a mechanism fail in favor of a mechanism that exclude civil society at a minimum and ideally revert to a multilateral model. Moreover, even non-state actors beholden to such states walk a fine line.

This is far from silly, it’s quite rational. Game theory 101.

Best regards, 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/

From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:37 AM
To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; <ws2-hr at icann.org> <ws2-hr at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Outcomes of todays call

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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> 
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org> >
>>> <ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>  <mailto: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>  <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

> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto: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/20170903/7994a1a7/attachment-0001.html>