[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

Thu Feb 27 01:33:56 PST 2020

Hi Olivier,

I clarified that to Greg a few minutes ago, but to make sure there are no misunderstandings, a response to the contents of the advice will be coming soon.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

From: Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Chapter-delegates
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 09:36
To: Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org>; John More <morej1 at mac.com>
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

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://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=1f1d4d2a-43949625-1f1d0db1-0cc47ad93e1a-28ba19917e2aca69&q=1&e=c8786cdd-dfc1-4146-9041-3c6dcbcdd467&u=https%3A%2F%2Fisoc.box.com%2Fs%2Famwx365bl2w38gh3laxneo2pv1q4w1jy>
  2.  Advice 2020.02.13-02 :: ISOC constituencies must be consulted<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=73f7edd0-2f7e36df-73f7ad4b-0cc47ad93e1a-4bb2ce9539cac582&q=1&e=c8786cdd-dfc1-4146-9041-3c6dcbcdd467&u=https%3A%2F%2Fisoc.box.com%2Fs%2F3gey7i3gbqomurwfhhuvxqq49ms0hwm3>
  3.  Advice 2020.02.13-03 :: Changes to ISOC’s Bylaws to strengthen Advisory Councils and Chapters<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3761fcf4-6be827fb-3761bc6f-0cc47ad93e1a-5ac3e2637b55a196&q=1&e=c8786cdd-dfc1-4146-9041-3c6dcbcdd467&u=https%3A%2F%2Fisoc.box.com%2Fs%2Ffhl9ako4i1a4m2ivxuaez42y4vapeoyb>

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<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=ce71f2b3-92f829bc-ce71b228-0cc47ad93e1a-5f924bf70eeb3035&q=1&e=c8786cdd-dfc1-4146-9041-3c6dcbcdd467&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gih.com%2Focl.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200227/4eb5d9cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11390 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200227/4eb5d9cc/attachment.png>