[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus

[George Kirikos]

I just want to go on the record that I disagree with this proposed
procedure. I outlined some of those reasons previously:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html

The ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour document states that members should:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

"Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find
solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's
responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus
driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the
ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the
model by trying to build consensus with other participants."

An anonymous poll does not reflect any attempts by those responding to
it to "work to build consensus". It's an abdication of one's
responsibilities.

Furthermore, that document states that members

"Facilitate transparency and openness when participating in policy
development and decision-making processes."

An anonymous poll is diametrically opposed to that transparency, and
accountability.

I mentioned previously I'm reading the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio,
and one of the topics he talks about is transparency in
decision-making:

"1.3 Create an environment in which everyone has the right to
understand and no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without
speaking up.

Whether people have the independence and character to fight for the
best answers will depend upon their nature, but you can encourage them
by creating an atmosphere in which everyone's first thought is to ask:
"Is it true?"

(a) Speak up, own it, or get out. In an idea meritocracy, openness is
a responsibility; you not only have the privilege to speak up and
"fight for right" but are obliged to do so. This extends especially to
principles. Just like everything else, principles need to be
questioned and debated. What you're not allowed to do is complain and
criticize privately -- either to others or in your own head. If you
can't fulfill this obligation, then you must go." (page 329)

Those who oppose a certain option should be open about it, and explain
their reasoning openly. They should "speak up, own it, or get out."
They should also keep an open mind so that they listen to other
viewpoints, and potentially have their own positions changed through a
two-way dialog.

Instead, the co-chairs are proposing a path forward which is designed
to cement divisions, rather than reconciling them.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/




On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter
> Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
>
>
>
>
>
> It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the
> options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully
> asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point;
> that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and
> discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional
> options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group
> participants regarding which option should prevail.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
>
>
>
> If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion
> of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus
> call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG
> consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and
> that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the
> intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call,
> we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please
> respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is
> needed.
>
>
>
> On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose
> of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of
> support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG
> members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for
> addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with
> means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of
> the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition
> for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members
> wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG
> member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll
> will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of
> the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and
> will be included as a section of our Final Report.
>
>
>
> Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share
> their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each
> option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th,
> 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The
> GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide
> feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level
> for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the
> procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed
> we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will
> provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority
> views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO
> Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission
> deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
>
>
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank
> you.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp