[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Mike,

please be so kind to find my comments inline:

On 01/03/2020 21:20, Mike Godwin via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> 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.

Eduardo has followed the rules of the Chapter AC. If you do not agree
with these rules, this opens another debate and I suggest that you
propose a motion to change these rules. In his proposal for a consensus
call, Chapter AC Steering Committee Chair asked for objections. None
were received during the time of the Consensus Call.

> 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.

I challenge you to show that there was "strong dissent" during the time
of the Consensus Call. I agree that we are now seeing dissent and
opposition to the motion, but it is way past the time of the Consensus
Call. The lesson to be learnt here is for Chapters Advisory Council
delegates to pay attention to what is going on and to respond on time.
Yes, there will be serious issues debated here. Yes, there will be
Consensus Calls. But the discussion has not just come out of the
woodwork unannounced. All it would have taken for a full vote to take
place instead of a consensus call, would have been 1 email asking for it
during the Consensus Call period and none was received. 1 email that
would have taken at most 30 seconds to write.

>
> 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.

Please demonstrate, from the Chapter AC Bylaws, where "process was not
[intentionally] used"

>
> 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.

This is an unsubstantiated allegation and is not constructive. Nowhere
is there an interest in "erasing" dissent, but rules are rules.
Otherwise we end up with chaos.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200301/5ce162c7/attachment.htm>