[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

Wed Feb 26 22:28:25 PST 2020

Gonzalo and all,

I'd like to add a few observations.   Overall, it was a little off-putting
to find that most of your response seemed aimed at discounting the advice
and the level of support it enjoyed -- particularly given the major themes
of the advice itself.  I understand these are trying times, and that you
may not have actually read the advice at that time, but it did not strike
me as quite the spirit in which such advice should be acknowledged.   I
hope you will accept this email in the constructive manner in which it is
offered.

First, with regard to preparing the draft advice: it should be noted that
the drafting team's work went first to the *ChAC Steering Committee* which
sent it back with comments. This further step in development and engagement
should not be overlooked.

With regard to the decisional steps, ChAC rules and procedures state:
"Decisions shall normally be taken by consensus (meaning lack of formal
opposition). If consensus cannot be achieved, then the Chair of the AC
Steering Committee shall organize a vote. In case of voting, decisions
shall be taken by a majority vote of the delegates to the AC. The quorum
shall be nineteen (19) delegates*."*

The consensus call sent to the ChAC said: "Please let us know if you object
to any individual advice or all of the advice and provide the reasoning for
the objection."  This is consistent with the the definition of
consensus as *lack
of formal opposition.* This is simply not a system designed to count
supporters. It should not be used as such -- particularly not to claim that
the the result of the consensus call indicated an 80-85% lack of
engagement.

Given the attributes of this system, the number of positive responses is
simply not particularly meaningful.  If you want a system that expressly
enumerates positive support, this isn't it.  In this system, support arises
from *lack of opposition*.  Consider that 3-4 SC members and 4 drafting
team members did not respond to the consensus call.  Should this be
understood to mean they did not engage, did not participate in the
discussion and did form an opinion on the advice?  Clearly not. It should
be understood to mean they understand the system, which is that those who
support the advice *did not have to respond*.

Similarly, no conclusion can be reached about others who did not formally
weigh in.  Given the system, the presumption must be that they were part of
the consensus, and not part of the group who told you they somehow missed
the entire discussion.

It is also notable that *the consensus call email thread contains more
emails (44) than any other ChAC thread in the last three years, by a wide
margin*.  With regard to the claim of 80-85% non-participation: there were
roughly 25 positive responses, out of 98 ChAC reps (better than 25%
affirmative support).  If you add in SC and DT members who did not respond,
active support rises to roughly 1/3 of the total ChAC -- a substantial
number in a system predicated on objections or the lack of objections,
rather than affirmative support.

This does not mean I'm entirely satisfied with the level of expressive
participation.  More active engagement and discussion would have been
great. And consistently greater engagement is a laudable goal. But the
level of affirmative responses should not be turned into a measure of
engagement.

The key takeaway from all of this should be that consensus was achieved and
reported.

The use of the term "unanimous" was substantively meaningless. While it may
have been loose talk, it strikes me as a bit harsh to call it
"unfortunately inappropriate."

Finally, your disappointment that we "decided not to include any
information that was made available after February 10th, including the
recently announced PIC" misses the mark.  This was a necessity so we could
issue any advice at all in a timely manner.  This advice had been worked on
for weeks and was at the end of the consensus call when the PICs were
announced.  Pulling back the advice and considering the PICs would have
required more drafting and another consensus call.  In a rapidly changing
atmosphere, this approach can result in no advice at all.  Much of the
advice addressed issues beyond those to which the PICS applied. It was
judged better to put the advice out so that it would be part of the record
and the conversation, while making it clear that it could be revised based
on further developments.

I look forward to working with you, the rest of the Board, ISOC staff, the
ChAC, the Chapters and all ISOC members to work toward making ISOC the best
organization it can be.

Best regards,

Greg

----------------------------------------------------------
*Greg Shatan | President, ISOC-NY*
greg at isoc-ny.org

[image: isoc-ny_logo_800x158_definiitive.png]
*"The Internet is for everyone"*

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:38 PM John More via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Agreed.  There was a consensus.  Unanimous only applies when there has
> been call for votes and there are no “no” votes.
>
> John More
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 8:59 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been confused, however, by the use of the term "unanimous consensus."
>
> In general, even though "consensus" does not signify that a formal vote
> was taken, "unanimous" signifies the opposite, per standard United Nations
> nomenclature and throughout civil society.
>
> In my own practice of international law, I've never encountered the usage
> "unanimous consensus" in any normal proceeding, but the general rule is
> that when "unanimous" is used, a formal vote was taken, and there was no
> dissent. Is the understanding that you mean to communicate simply that
> there was no dissent about anything at all regarding the ChAC's advice?
> Other lawyers here of course may take different views, and I look forward
> to improving my understanding of the language used here.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike Godwin
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:22 PM John More via Chapter-delegates <
> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> Richard
>>
>> My apologies.  You are absolutely correct that the consensus call
>> (including silence) is to be taken as approval of the recommendations. When
>> helping draft the policies and procedures for the ChAC, i fully supported
>> consensus as the proper procedure for obtaining approval, unless there was
>> a call for a formal vote.  There was no call for a vote in this instance.
>>
>> I note further that the draft recommendations were circulated.  There
>> were calls for comments.  Richard did a great job incorporating comments.
>> An adequate time was given to express opposition to the consensus. An
>> reminders were sent out for the deadline
>>
>> I am afraid my comment, which was entirely personal, came from my wishing
>> there had been more active engagement .
>>
>> So, again, the consensus procedure was correct and stands as approval by
>> the Chapters of the proposed recommendations.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:01 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> I disagree with your inference below. The consensus call clearly
>> indicated that lack of opposition (silence) would indicate approval. That’s
>> not an unusual way to seek approval, it it is used in many circumstances.
>> And it is the method foreseen in the ChAC’s operating rules.
>>
>> So, if we believe  in rules and procedures, then we must accept that the
>> advice represents the consensus of the Chapters.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>> *From:* Chapter-delegates [
>> mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>> <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org>] *On Behalf Of *John More
>> via Chapter-delegates
>> *Sent:* mercredi, 26. février 2020 15:30
>> *To:* Gonzalo Camarillo
>> *Cc:* Chapters AC Elist; Chapter Delegates
>> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> The failure of the large majority of Chapter delegates to communicate in
>> the call for consensus does indicate that the recommendations do not
>> reflect a broad consensus in the ISOC community.  They reflect the concerns
>> of the more activist Chapters.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> John More
>> Delegate, ISOC-DC
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 6:14 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo via Chapter-delegates <
>> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eduardo,
>>
>> thanks for putting together the three documents with advice to the Board.
>> The Board will discuss them and get back to you in order to continue the
>> dialog.
>>
>> In addition, as you know, we have been working for several years with you
>> and the previous ChAC chairs to find ways for us to engage the community
>> more effectively. Unfortunately, that still seems to be a challenge. Per
>> the thread below, where you seem to have discussed this advice, around 80
>> to 85% of our 124 chapters did not participate in the discussions or
>> express any opinion on the advice at all:
>>
>> https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home?CommunityKey=2ee50649-4a00-4918-83a5-4c8a9a7c7a4c
>>
>> We hope to continue working with you on finding ways to engage a much
>> larger fraction of our community in the future, especially when dealing
>> with important issues.
>>
>> With the above in mind, it is unfortunately inappropriate to say that
>> this advice was approved by *unanimous* consensus since most of the
>> community did not even participate in the discussions (after receiving your
>> advice, several people from different chapters indeed told me they had
>> actually not noticed the discussions on the advice at all). Therefore, I am
>> cc'ing the 'Chapter Delegates' mailing list on this email so that as many
>> people as possible from our community are aware of these advice and our
>> upcoming response.
>>
>> I have also noticed that you decided not to include any information that
>> was made available after February 10th, including the recently announced
>> PIC. Well, we can discuss that on the webinar on Friday. I am looking
>> forward to that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>> Chair - ISOC Board of Trustees
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 04:22
>> *To:* Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com>; Kevin Craemer <
>> Craemer at isoc.org>
>> *Cc:* Chapters AC Elist <ChaptersAC-SC at elists.isoc.org>
>> *Subject:* ChAC-SC Advice notice
>>
>> Distinguished Members of the Board:
>>
>> The Chapter Advisory Council Steering Committee (ChAC-SC) is submitting
>> the following advice for your consideration:
>>
>>
>>    1. Advice 2020.02.13-01 :: *The sale of PIR to Ethos Capital should
>>    not proceed unless a number of conditions are met.
>>    <https://isoc.box.com/s/amwx365bl2w38gh3laxneo2pv1q4w1jy>*
>>    2. Advice 2020.02.13-02 :: ISOC constituencies must be consulted
>>    <https://isoc.box.com/s/3gey7i3gbqomurwfhhuvxqq49ms0hwm3>
>>    3. Advice 2020.02.13-03 :: Changes to ISOC’s Bylaws to strengthen
>>    Advisory Councils and Chapters
>>    <https://isoc.box.com/s/fhl9ako4i1a4m2ivxuaez42y4vapeoyb>
>>
>>
>> The Full Chapter Advisory Council (Full ChAC) approved all Advice by
>> unanimous consensus. No objections were received by the set deadline.
>>
>> Please note that Advice #1 is based on information available as of 10
>> February 2020.
>>
>> Thank you for the opportunity to work with you to make ISOC a better
>> organization.
>>
>>
>> Eduardo Díaz
>> Chair
>> ChAC-SC
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS):
>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS):
>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200227/c03382c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: isoc-ny_logo_800x158_definiitive.png
Type: image/png
Size: 52116 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200227/c03382c0/attachment.png>