[CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR

Mon May 4 18:10:38 UTC 2020

Alan,

Thank you very much for your informative response. I believe you’re heading
in a direction that may lead to a productive conversation about the
At-Large consensus process which has nothing to do with the content of any
specific policies.

I see how you may feel like a broken record repeating the many things you
just said about our current process that you’ve probably  said over and
over for many years. It’s my understanding that the At-Large consensus
process is currently undocumented, and as such, I fear you are at risk of
having to repeat yourself again in the future … unless we look into the
creation of a document that records your knowledge of the process and the
knowledge of other seasoned At-Large members.

I am very reluctant to see any process document be used as another “rule
book” to delay the creation of timely policy. However, I do believe there’s
an opportunity to create a document that describes the high level
interactions expected in any At-Large consensus building policy discussion.

If the nature of the document remains high level, then there’s an
opportunity to record the community’s common understanding of how the
process works. This document would be available for reference in future
cases of highly controversial policy debate, and it could be used by new
members to understand the culture of our community … “The Spirit of
At-Large”.

Evin recently sent out a “Consensus Playbook
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-4-consensus-playbook-21apr20-en.pdf>”
which originated from GNSO’s Policy Development Process 3.0 initiative. I’m
not sure we want to adopt this particular document, but it serves as an
example of what can be considered.

A very different example of a consensus process document comes from the
IETF in RFC 7282, “On Consensus and Humming in the IETF”
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282>. I tend to favour this type of
document, because it records institutional traditions and is an
“Informational” only document, which means it doesn’t directly play into
the procedural operations of the IETF. However, I do believe that recording
the cultural norms of the community is a worthwhile exercise with tangible
benefits to our productivity.

Cheers!

David

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:50 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> David, I'm not going to comment on the substance of the PIR discussion
> here, although I largely agree with Greg.
>
> But I will comment on the processes at Large uses to address consensus.
>
> To a great extent, on most issues, there has been little dissent within
> At-Large on policy issues (there is at times disagreement on how At-Large
> or more likely parts of it govern themselves, but that is a different issue
> for a different time). Despite the widely ranging variation on
> circumstances, the underlying issues that impact end users (other than
> access and connectivity which are different but outside of ICANN's remit)
> are very similar.
>
> But on occasion, there are various differing opinions on a particular
> issue. Sometimes discussion addresses this and we end up with the vast
> majority of a single mind (the ALS-Mobilization-WP discussions on whether
> there was a conflict with people or ALSes holding multiple positions within
> ICANN was one such example).
>
> Very occasionally, we are divided and stay that way. There are two
> outcomes with regard to formal statements made by the ALAC on behalf of
> At-Large.
>
> a) We decide that we must make a statement, but provide both
> sides/positions with some idea of split proportions.
>
> b) We decide not to comment because we are not really in a position to
> speak on behalf of our divided community and that presenting the division
> would not really be helpful.
>
> Although the ALAC itself at times votes and technically we decide most
> issues by a majority, I cannot recall a time where that vote was close (on
> policy issues) and we presented only the "winning" position. Consensus
> rules the day in most cases, and our rule of thumb is 80% must agree for a
> consensus to be declared.
>
> Perhaps we need to get better at this, or be more precise, but these rules
> and processes have generally been acceptable for quite some number of years.
>
> Alan
>
> At 2020-05-03 03:35 PM, David Mackey wrote:
>
> It's hard to see the words "There is mounting concern that ICANN is no
> longer responsive to the needs of its stakeholders." as being positive for
> ICANN without thoughtful reflection.
>
> It also seems that the position of the California Attorney General aligns
> better with the dissent voiced in the At-Large CPWG email thread
> discussions, rather than the advice that was eventually given to the board.
>
> The final .ORG decision may over, but I hope there's opportunity for a
> discussion on how to improve the At-Large consensus process.
>
> It appears the dissent voices raised in this email group did, in fact,
> have merit and were not easily dismissed outside the At-Large community as
> being merely "passionate".
>
> It might be a good idea to see how we as a community can better
> encapsulate dissent and non-consensus into our process.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:45 AM Matthias M. Hudobnik <matthias at hudobnik.at>
> wrote:
>
> Well said Jonathan!
>
>
>
> Have a nice day!
>
> Best,
>
> M.
>
>
>
> _________________________
>
> Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik
>
> matthias at hudobnik.at
>
> http://www.hudobnik.at
>
>
>
> Von: CPWG [ mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org <cpwg-bounces at icann.org>] Im
> Auftrag von Jonathan Zuck
> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2020 09:49
> An: Maureen Hilyard; Dev Anand Teelucksingh
> Cc: CPWG
> Betreff: Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
>
>
>
> Interesting indeed.  I would stress, however, that it might have much to
> do with our brand (as the sympathetic voice of end users) as it did with
> our content. Persistence of Perspective!
>
>
>
> From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org > on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <
> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM
> To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>
> Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
>
>
>
> Interesting that it was our almost two pages of practical advice from the
> ALAC that gained the attention of the AG to use as a lash on ICANN than the
> letters to the Board from the ASO and NCSG.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:43 PM Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Indeed, interesting and noteworthy to point out that ALAC statements do
> have impact.
>
> Its a pity because the PDF of the ALAC statement is on the wiki, the link
> is
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ISOC+Sells+PIR?preview=/120821713/126423106/ALAC%20Advice%20to%20the%20ICANN%20Board%20on%20the%20ISOC%3APIR%20Issue%20-%20FINAL%20310120.pdf
>
>
>
> Dev Anand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:44 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Wow, quite a slap down by the AG of California.  ALAC advice re: this
> issue referenced as reasons for concern.
>
> Marita
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200504/3a3dda24/attachment-0001.html>