[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

[Richard Hill]

Dear Mike,


With due respect, the ChAC process was scrupulously followed, as Eduardo has explained. You apparently think that that process is not appropriate. You are of course entitled to you views, but it is the process that was approved by the Board.

 

Regarding the issue being controversial, that is for sure the case. The document sent to the Board makes that clear, and outlines the differing points of view. That is, all points of view have been heard and are reflected in the document.

 

So there is no attempt to use the procedures to give the appearance of unanimity, and the practice of including dissenting views has been followed.


Best,

Richard

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Mike Godwin via Chapter-delegates
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 22:21
To: Juan C. Cigala, Internet Society Canarias
Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

 

I take Juan’s objections here—as I take Franca’s and Solomon’s—quite seriously. I have great respect for the use of “consensus”-focused processes in the UN and civil-society contexts. That said, the “consensus” process is generally accepted primarily with regard to issues around which there is little or no controversy. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that there is strong dissent—which may of course represent less than a majority of interests—regarding ChAC’s recommendations. In general, the UN approach, and the civil-society approach, aims at ensuring that all dissenting voices be heard. What seems to me to be the case in this context is that, in the interests of presenting an appearance of “full” and “unanimous” backing of a recommendation, procedural aspects of the use of a consensus process have been deployed to give the larger apprearance if unanimity.

 

This may, of course, be entirely accidental. Many people may reasonably believe that process was not intentionally used to eliminate the appearance of dissent or lack of unanimity. This is what I personally choose to believe.

 

But when the issues being debated are controversial, the general rule in civil society is to use procedural rules to be inclusive of dissent rather than seem to be willing to erase it.

 

Mike Godwin

 

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 4:04 PM Juan C. Cigala, Internet Society Canarias via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

I agree with Franca and Solomon, silence is not consent.

Many of us haven't the time to take care of this kind of never ending 
kind of discussions.

I support the debate, but with the due respect for the time of the others.


On 2/27/2020 04:49, Solomon Hopewell Kembo via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> I agree with Franca, silence is not consent.

_______________________________________________
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/20200301/0cbf7395/attachment.htm>