[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

Thu Feb 27 06:38:51 PST 2020

Dear Mike,

You are correct, the bullet should read “Approved by consensus by the ChAC”.

I used the term “full” because we have two mailing lists for the ChaC: the Steering Committee and the “full”.  But the term full should not be used in the context of the consensus.

Separately, in people on this list aren’t aware of it, there are many more people on this list (Chapter Delegates) than on the ChAC list.  The ChAC list contains only the representatives to the ChAC that have been named by chapters, and not all chapters have named a representative.

Best,

Richard

From: Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemonic at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 14:39
To: Richard Hill
Cc: Narelle Clark; ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

I have a further question about the language of the 23 February bullet. As you note, it says this:

'Approved by unanimous consensus by the full ChAC'

You then note that ' the penultimate bullet should be corrected to read “Approved by consensus of the full ChAC”.'

Can you explain why the word "full" is used prior to "ChAC"? Like the use of "unanimous," the use of the word "full" is not standard usage in statements about the consensus decision-making process, per United Nations and civil-society norms. It seems as if the word "full" has been added in order to suggest that every member of ChAC participated in the consensus process and approved of it. That seems to me likely to be interpreted in misleading ways, more or less the same way that "unanimous" is.

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

I have a further question about the language of the 23 February bullet. As you note, it says this:

Mike Godwin

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:01 AM Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

Dear Narelle,

I believe that the recent posts from John and Greg well describe the process used, which is the one defined in the ChAC’s rules. In addition, the last section of the advice sent to the Board shows the timeline and the steps of the process. I copy-paste it here:

● 17 December 2019: Issue raised with full AC

● 18 December 2019: Editing group created

● 30 December 2019: Version 0.0 posted

● 4 January 2020: Version 1.0 posted

● 10 January 2020: Editing group discusses draft, Version 1.1 posted

● 12 January 2020: Version 2.0 posted

● 21 January 2020: Editing group discusses draft, Version 3.0 posted

● 24 January 2020: Final output of editing group posted as Version 4.0

● 30- January-7 February 2020: Version 4.0 posted to ChAC list for comments

● 9 February 2020: Version 5.0 posted for discussion to editing group

● 10 February 2020: Version 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 & 5.4 posted

● 13 February 2020: Advice created

● 16 February 2020: Full ChAC Consensus Call

● 23 February 2020: Approved by unanimous consensus by the full ChAC

● 23 February 2020: Transmitted to ISOC Board of Directors Chair & Secretary

As already noted, the penultimate bullet should be corrected to read “Approved by consensus of the full ChAC”.

Note in particular that an earlier draft was put out for comment to the full ChAC list from 30- January-7 February 2020. Numerous comments were received and incorporated into the subsequent draft.

For  convenience, the advice is at:

  https://isoc.app.box.com/s/amwx365bl2w38gh3laxneo2pv1q4w1jy 

Please let me know if you have any other questions regarding the process. However, it is my view that we should focus on the substance of the advice, rather than debate subtle procedural issues.

Regarding the substance, why didn’t Ethos put the proposed PIC out for public comment, rather than presenting it as a fait-accompli? And why didn’t Ethos consult the community regarding replacing the previously proposed Benefit Corporation commitments with the PIC? All that material was public, why not ask what people think about it before attempting to cast it in stone?

Best,

Richard

From: Narelle Clark [mailto:narellec at gmail.com] 
Sent: jeudi, 27. février 2020 01:01
To: Richard Hill
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates; Gonzalo Camarillo; John More
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

Hi Richard

Would you mind giving an overview of the process used, or pointing me at a description of it?

Much appreciated 

Narelle 

On Thu, 27 Feb. 2020, 2:02 am Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates, <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> 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> 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> 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 < <mailto:eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com> eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 04:22
To: Gonzalo Camarillo < <mailto:gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com> gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com>; Kevin Craemer < <mailto:Craemer at isoc.org> Craemer at isoc.org>
Cc: Chapters AC Elist < <mailto:ChaptersAC-SC at elists.isoc.org> 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 ::  <https://isoc.box.com/s/amwx365bl2w38gh3laxneo2pv1q4w1jy> The sale of PIR to Ethos Capital should not proceed unless a number of conditions are met.
2.	Advice 2020.02.13-02 ::  <https://isoc.box.com/s/3gey7i3gbqomurwfhhuvxqq49ms0hwm3> ISOC constituencies must be consulted
3.	Advice 2020.02.13-03 ::  <https://isoc.box.com/s/fhl9ako4i1a4m2ivxuaez42y4vapeoyb> Changes to ISOC’s Bylaws to strengthen Advisory Councils and Chapters

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> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:  <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/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/d0a3882f/attachment.htm>