<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I do agree with Olivier that Eduardo did follow the rules of the
Chapter AC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>For many chapters across the globe such as ISOC Delhi, silence
meant we supported the Chapter AC decision. However, I understand that, it may
not be the case for a few chapters. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Still , I do not believe that there was any intention from the
CHAC-SC to stifle the voice of Chapters who do not support the decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Amrita <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><a name="_GingerEndOfDocBM"></a><b><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Chapter-delegates
[mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces@elists.isoc.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Olivier
MJ Crépin-Leblond via Chapter-delegates<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 2, 2020 3:20 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> mnemonic@gmail.com; Juan C. Cigala, Internet Society Canarias<br>
<b>Cc:</b> chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dear Mike,<br>
<br>
please be so kind to find my comments inline:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On 01/03/2020 21:20, Mike Godwin via Chapter-delegates
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I take Juan’s objections here—as I take Franca’s and
Solomon’s—quite seriously. I have great respect for the use of “consensus”-focused
processes in the UN and civil-society contexts. That said, the “consensus”
process is generally accepted primarily with regard to issues around which
there is little or no controversy.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Eduardo has followed the rules of the Chapter AC. If you do not agree with
these rules, this opens another debate and I suggest that you propose a motion
to change these rules. In his proposal for a consensus call, Chapter AC
Steering Committee Chair asked for objections. None were received during the
time of the Consensus Call.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The evidence I’ve seen suggests that there is strong
dissent—which may of course represent less than a majority of
interests—regarding ChAC’s recommendations. In general, the UN approach, and
the civil-society approach, aims at ensuring that all dissenting voices be
heard. What seems to me to be the case in this context is that, in the
interests of presenting an appearance of “full” and “unanimous” backing of a
recommendation, procedural aspects of the use of a consensus process have been
deployed to give the larger apprearance if unanimity.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
I challenge you to show that there was "strong dissent" during the
time of the Consensus Call. I agree that we are now seeing dissent and
opposition to the motion, but it is way past the time of the Consensus Call.
The lesson to be learnt here is for Chapters Advisory Council delegates to pay
attention to what is going on and to respond on time. Yes, there will be
serious issues debated here. Yes, there will be Consensus Calls. But the
discussion has not just come out of the woodwork unannounced. All it would have
taken for a full vote to take place instead of a consensus call, would have
been 1 email asking for it during the Consensus Call period and none was
received. 1 email that would have taken at most 30 seconds to write.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>This may, of course, be entirely accidental. Many people may
reasonably believe that process was not intentionally used to eliminate the
appearance of dissent or lack of unanimity. This is what I personally choose to
believe.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Please demonstrate, from the Chapter AC Bylaws, where "process was not
[intentionally] used"<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>But when the issues being debated are controversial, the
general rule in civil society is to use procedural rules to be inclusive of
dissent rather than seem to be willing to erase it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
This is an unsubstantiated allegation and is not constructive. Nowhere is there
an interest in "erasing" dissent, but rules are rules. Otherwise we
end up with chaos.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>