[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Wed Feb 26 23:35:41 PST 2020
Dear Greg,
thank you for explaining what consensus is. A "consensus call" is indeed
a call to ask for any opposition to the motion being presented and
usually only objectors should respond. On this occasion (and on many
others), some Chapters felt so strongly about the Advice being given
that they explicitly decided to also publicly show their approval of the
Advice. But indeed no objections were received and showing support was
entirely optional. Now the Chapter AC Steering Committee has always said
that if someone called for a vote instead of a consensus call, it would
be possible to go down that route but all we are doing is to follow our
Bylaws.
Using "Unanimous Consensus" was unfortunate and having looked at the
announcement before it went out, I should have pointed this out. The
correct term is "Consensus".
That said, I personally totally agree that we need to work with the ISOC
BoT Chair, 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. So focussing on procedures rather than the substance of the
Statement is entirely disingenuous and does not serve ISOC's Mission -
and that disconnect concerns me.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
Chapter AC Steering Committee Vice Chair
(own views)
On 27/02/2020 07:28, Greg Shatan via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> 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 <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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] *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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 04:22
>>> *To:* Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com
>>> <mailto:gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com>>; Kevin Craemer
>>> <Craemer at isoc.org <mailto:Craemer at isoc.org>>
>>> *Cc:* Chapters AC Elist <ChaptersAC-SC at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto: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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200227/4658bc38/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/20200227/4658bc38/attachment.png>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list