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

Wed Jan 11 05:35:40 UTC 2017

I will not dwell on this particular event, but as we continue in this
process I will encourage the rapporteur (who belongs to everyone and no
one) to always recognise that the group isn't balanced in all ramifications
hence question about "who" determines consensus needs to handled carefully.
Where consensus are practiced in the RIR and IETF world even a single
person could raise a point of substance that would affect the consensus
check.

Overall everyone irrespective of race and origin needs to be heard and the
substance of their point should be addressed as much as possible - everyone
should feel welcomed and heard in this community!

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 11 Jan 2017 12:25 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 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.

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-bounc
> es 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
>
>

_______________________________________________
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/20170111/3dd37d09/attachment.html>