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

[Greg Shatan]

As long as this is "for the record," I'd like the record to be correct.

Parminder is referring to the initial poll where we were gauging support
for 3 different alternatives (and ultimately a fourth), not to the final
consensus call.  (I believe the results were actually 13-3...)  Notably,
all the other alternatives had more (or much more) non-support than they
did support.

The actual consensus call on the final formulation had only a single
objection.

Greg



On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> Actually you are misrepresenting the situation, Parminder.
>
>
>
> At least two of the “no” votes to which you refer were not votes against
> proceeding with the version of Q4 we ended up adopting, they were
> expressing preferences for small alterations in wording.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 1:52 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
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> 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/20170110/6cff6129/attachment-0001.html>