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

Tue Jan 10 19:31:53 UTC 2017

1.	It's not a rule. It's survey design. We could just as easily have
written a question that asked about respondents hopes and fears. However,
that, IMO, would be far less useful in an empirical sense and answer
different questions.
2.	Your expectation notwithstanding, there is nothing that requires
only such inputs from being accepted in the future. Continued participation
in the working group and calling this to our attention all  but guarantees
this will not be the case.
3.	I don't fear the discussion of hypotheticals; I have them all the
time. When it comes to making sound policy however, I want it to be based
upon facts and not fears. Hence, my push for questions with an empirical
basis.
4.	I welcome discourse on the problems of jurisdiction. However,
unsubstantiated conversation isn't a sound basis for public policy.
5.	Yes. I'm empathetic not oblivious to the demographics of the
consensus vote. Such demographics are unfortunately characteristic of many
if not most Internet governance venues. My issue with the minority position
was that I simply found its question formulation weaker as a matter of
survey design.

Best regards, 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

Consulting Scholar

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

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 12:52 PM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's working
- and my objection to the so called consensus

I would also like it to be on record that the so called consensus was
decided on basis of 11 to 3 votes, which were neatly divided along the lines
of developed countries based persons and developing country based ones. All
those who voted "yes" to the final formulation were from developed
countries, overwhelmingly US based (which has current jurisdiction on
ICANN), and all those from developing countries voted "no". There were only
three participants from developing countries, and all voted "no". I must
however state that many from developed countries did not vote either way.

I am all for friendship and camaraderie, but there is a limit to playing
down such significant facts and differences, especially in relation to such
an important geopolitical issue as the jurisdictional oversight over ICANN.
This particular fact of how voting was split cannot be ignored. 

parminder 

On Tuesday 10 January 2017 11:59 PM, parminder wrote:

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 inputs 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 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170110/7090171b/attachment-0001.html>