[Chapter-delegates] About the use of the words "full" and "unanimous" in the ChAC-SC Advice notice

Sun Mar 1 11:47:22 PST 2020

Dear all:

We have been reading the on-line discussion about the procedures that the
ISOC Chapter Advisory Council Steering Committee (ChAC-SC) used to arrive
at the three pieces of Advice and the use of the words “unanimous” and
“full”.

We propose the following clarification:

First the procedure. A meeting of the full Chapter Advisory Council (full
ChAC) was convened on 17 December 2019 to discuss, among other agenda
issues, the PIR sale. 40 Chapter Advisory Council Delegates  participated
in that meeting. Quorum for these meetings is 19. This meeting was 210%
quorate (40/19). See meeting participation and minutes in this link:
https://isoc.box.com/s/xr9q3re7ibjo0kt0tsj2a1cy9df7vlqa

A Drafting Group (DG) was created during this meeting.  Nine (9) ChAC
Delegates volunteers came forward and started to work on 18 December 2019
on a Draft Advice document.

On 24 January 2020 the nine (9) members of the DG reached consensus on
version 4.0 of the Draft Advice document. This version was then sent to the
full ChAC to give everyone an opportunity to comment on it. The comment
period was open for 7 days from 30 January 2020 to 7 February 2020. Many
comments were received during this time.

The DG incorporated all comments received and after some additional
discussions , the group reached consensus on version 5.4 of the Draft
Advice document. This version was turned over to the ChAC-SC on 10 February
2020 at which time the ChAC-SC proceeded to extract verbatim the three
Advices contained in version 5.4 since one Advice was focused on the PIR
Sale and the other two on Chapter Roles.

On 16 February 2020, a Consensus call for a period of 7 days, from 16
February 2020 to 23 February 2020, was sent to the full ChAC. A reminder
note was sent to the same group on 20 February 2020.

No objections were received to the three pieces of advice at the end of the
set deadline, 23 February 2020 @ 16:00 UTC, for the consensus call. This
last step confirmed the approval of the three Advices by the full ChAC as
stated in our Rules and Procedures section 6.0 paragraph #2. (see
https://www.internetsociety.org/chapters/chapters-advisory-council/#Rules-and-Procedures
)

As you can infer from this procedure and timeline, the ChAC-SC went further
by having an Advice Comment period before reaching the consensus required
by our governance documents for any substantive decisions.

Now on the use of the words “full” and “unanimous”.

The word “full” is used in front of the abbreviations “ChAC” to indicate
that we are referring to the full list of Chapter Advisory Council
Delegates (see this list here:
https://apps.internetsociety.org/form/chapter-representatives) and not the
Chapter Advisory Council Steering Committee (ChAC-SC) which consist of nine
(9) members only (see
https://www.internetsociety.org/chapters/chapters-advisory-council/steering-committee).
This distinction grew organically since internal mailing lists were
constantly being confused. Adding the word “full” helped to eliminate the
confusion. The word “full” is used within the ISOC ChAC and does not have
any more meaning than the one stated.

We used the word “unanimous”, both within the latest Advice transmittal
history and ChAC notice, to the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT), to strictly
indicate that no objections were received during the consensus call made to
the full ChAC. We stated this fact in the notice sent to the BoT.

After hearing the reaction of the President of BoT and a few others, we
agree that the word "unanimous" used in the context of the Consensus call
could have led many people to misunderstand the result. John More, from the
Washington DC Chapter, pinpoints this in a recent email: “Unanimous only
applies when there has been [a] call for votes and there are no ‘no’ votes”.
In other words, you need certainty. In a consensus call process, certainty
that everyone was in “unanimous” agreement with whatever was stated is
something that cannot be concluded. In our case, the only certainty was
that no objections were received and it was within that context that we
used it.

We can assure you that the word “unanimous” will not be used by the ChAC-SC
in future Consensus calls going forward.

-ed

 ---0---

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:03 AM Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Dear Mike,
>
>
> Thanks for this. I used the word “full” merely to distinguish the Steering
> Committee list from the full list. I did not mean to imply anything else. I
> will let Eduoardo comment on his use of “unanimous”.
>
>
>
> The document sent to the Board clearly indicates that there is lack of
> consensus regarding many issues, and, in my view, it is a call for further
> discussions.
>
>
> So, from my point of view, there was no effort, conscious or unconscious,
> to eliminate any appearance of dissent or need for further discussions.
> Quite the contrary.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemonic at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 15:56
> *To:* Richard Hill
> *Cc:* Franca Palazzo; Narelle Clark; ISOC Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice
>
>
>
> Dear Richard,
>
>
>
> It is the nature of my work that I'm obligated to pay attention to what
> you call "procedural niceties." Many people think "procedural" concerns are
> relatively unimportant, but in the context of policy recommendations and
> decisions it is often the case that adherence to procedural norms minimizes
> the risks of misinformation and misperception.
>
>
>
> It seems possible, speaking as someone who was not a participant in this
> particular set of deliberations, although I have experienced similar
> deliberations in other contents, that there may have been an
> conscious effort to communicate that there was more "unanimous" or "full"
> participation in an important deliberation than, in practice, there was.
> It's also possible that there wasn't. But adhering to good procedural
> practice reduces uncertainty about these questions.
>
>
>
> If you are trying to say, Richard, that there was no active effort to
> eliminate any appearance of dissent or desire for further discussion, ,
> through the adroit use of "procedural niceties" or the particular choices
> of words like "unanimous" or "full,"  then I think it's good for you and
> other participants to say so expressly here.
>
>
>
> Mike Godwin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:36 AM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike,
>
>
>
> There was indeed a request to postpone the deadline for the consensus
> call, but the request was opposed. Since there was no consensus to postpone
> the deadline, the Chair of the ChAC (in my view correctly) ruled that the
> deadline would not be postponed.
>
>
>
> Please recall that this is about non-binding advice to the Board, so it
> seems unproductive to me to be quibbling about procedural niceties.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemonic at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2020 14:29
> *To:* Franca Palazzo
> *Cc:* Narelle Clark; Richard Hill; ISOC Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice
>
>
>
> Franca, you are not the only person from whom I have heard that there was
> a call for further discussion and that this call was actively discouraged
> or suppressed.
>
>
>
> In general, in larger United Nations or civil-society contexts, calls for
> further discussion are normally an indicator that driving a collective
> resolution towards consensus approval is premature.
>
>
>
> Mike Godwin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:37 AM Franca Palazzo via Chapter-delegates <
> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> I do not agree that silence is consent.
>
> The Canadian Chapter does not necessarily agree with this submission in
> its entirety.
>
> I asked for further discussion and was immediately pounced on.
>
> Our chapter should not be associated as agreeing with these
> recommendations.
>
> We dont have the time nor the resources to properly engage on this.
>
> I had not realized we could call for a vote.  It would seem to me that
> this should have been done.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org> on
> behalf of Narelle Clark via Chapter-delegates <
> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 7:00:45 PM
> *To:* Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
> *Cc:* ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> *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
> <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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>

-- 
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200301/85643042/attachment.htm>