[Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's working - and my objection to the so called consensus
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Jan 11 04:15:08 UTC 2017
On Wednesday 11 January 2017 04:54 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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.
Greg, I distinctly remember it as 11-3, but youd know better.
>
> The actual consensus call on the final formulation had only a single
> objection.
No, that "just one vote against" was not on the substantive matter of
the questionnaire text, where indeed was 11-3, it was on the question if
anyone objected to the process of consensus being called, which is
clearly a very different matter. I hope it is not presented that the
questionnaire was carried by 11-1 or 13-1 vote.
Thanks, parminder
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction
> mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <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/20170111/4018274c/attachment.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list