[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

[John More]

+1. 

Throughout the process, there was no attempt whatsoever to exclude or erase contrary positions.  In fact, the draft went through multiple versions to take into account dissenting positions. Full opportunity was given to all positions.

John More
ISOC-DC

> On Mar 1, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/