[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

[Amrita]

I do agree with Olivier that Eduardo did follow the rules of the Chapter AC.

 

For many chapters across the globe such as ISOC Delhi, silence meant we supported the Chapter AC decision.   However,  I understand that, it may not be the case for a few chapters. 

 

Still , I do not  believe that  there was any intention from the CHAC-SC to stifle the voice of Chapters who do not support the decision.

 

Regards

 

Amrita 

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Chapter-delegates
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 3:20 AM
To: mnemonic at gmail.com; Juan C. Cigala, Internet Society Canarias
Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

 

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/20200302/c2e238e0/attachment.htm>