[Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's working - and my objection to the so called consensus

[parminder]

Dear Co-Chairs/ All

I understand that the Chairs will right now be busy drafting a report to
submit for the CCWG meeting tomorrow indicating consensus on the
questionnaire as seems to have been agreed in today's call. Since I made
a formal objection to the process, I will like to clarify the basis of
my objection, putting it on record.

My objection mainly arises from the fact that that the jurisdiction
sub-group seems to be deciding a new, innovative, and completely unjust,
rule for its working. It apparently has decided that in taking public/
community input into its work, /*it will accept only such in*//*puts
that are fully and exclusively based on actual *//*occurrences*//*/
instances *//*that can be proven to have happened in the past*/. I
expect that, in the typical creeping acquisition way, this new rule
would then also be applied to the discussions, and to making
recommendations, by the group itself. 

This is a unique and significant epistemological stance. Importantly,
such a stance was not applied to the work of work-stream I of CCWG, for
coming up with a new accountability mechanism. It was never insisted
that only such "facts" as arise from actual occurrences in the past can
be the basis of suggesting any institutional change.

Even in other groups of work-stream 2, like those dealing with
transparency, human rights framework, etc, it is not a condition that
any institutional change has to be based on facts arising from actual
"verifiable occurrences" in the past, and the implications arising
thereof. I have some passing acquaintance about the stage of outputs
from the subgroups on transparency and human rights, and I know for a
fact that /*there has never been a condition that any institutional
innovation can only arise from "verifiable occurrences" in the past,
absent which no change can be suggested or made*/.  

In the circumstance, it is question of fairness and natural justice, to
ask why a jurisdiction related institutional change can only be based on
facts that directly arise from clearly verifiable past occurrences. What
is so special about jurisdiction related institutional changes - which
is the mandate of a separate sub group, and about which issue many
actors were insistent since the very start that it should be given full
consideration?

I am happy to shown otherwise, but right now I can only think that this
is being done with the intention to fend off the discussion going in
directions that certain actors fear would not serve their interests. If
one fears losing a case on cannons of reason, justice and preponderance
of public opinion, the best thing to do - if one is powerful enough - 
is to simply change the rules of how a decision process will be
conducted, and what are the legitimate or illegitimate inputs into it.
That is exactly what has been done in this case. It strains the
credibility of ICANN's so called open process; whose first rule seems to
be, throw so much resources at any important issue as to overwhelm any
discussion about it, and then, if "problems" persist, simply change the
rules and frame new ones, as has been done in this case. I cannot accept
that an ICANN WG cannot trust the community/ public to give their free
and unconstrained views on a key issue central to its mandate. And that
it should resort to making novel, and absurd rules, about what can and
what cannot be said by the public/ community as inputs into its work.
This especially when in very similar parallel processes there exists no
such rule. This new rule changes the very basis of the working of this
sub group, and almost completely hamstrings it.

parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170110/49333013/attachment.html>