[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

Mon Mar 2 04:01:27 PST 2020

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your kind words below. I am satisfied that you understand that we are all being sincere, even if we do disagree on certain topics.

Best,

Richard

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Mike Godwin via Chapter-delegates
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 12:59
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

I take these criticisms of my responses to be entirely fair. I thank you and the list for your patience with my misunderstandings and/or misreadings of different responses.

Certainly I understand that everyone who takes pains to participate here is motivated by sincere concern about both .ORG and the general work of the Internet Society, including the work of its Chapters.

I hope that, to the extent I have misread others' postings here, I may be forgiven for misreadings that are grounded in the commitment to Internet Society work and values that we all share.

Mike

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:22 PM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:

Mike,

This is a situation where tensions run high and a lot is on the line.  There has been a general tendency to group people into "camps" -- as "for" or "against" the transaction.  That loses a lot of nuance, to say the least.  I think you are mistaken to assume that "many members of this list oppose the sale."  Even if this were true, it would be a mistake to build on this Chapters Delegates list and assume that many members of the Chapters Advisory Council oppose the sale.  To be clear, this is not the ChAC email list -- there are many people on this list who are not on the ChAC, and reading this list is not a substitute for understanding what transpired on the ChAC.

These mistaken assumptions seems to be the springboard for your mistaken perception that efforts were made to suppress dissent, and that multiple members of the ChAC "participated" in this "suppression."  I'm disappointed to see you make such a strong accusation.  The last thing we need here is a spitting match between members of the Board and members of the ChAC. 

I would say that the prevailing sense on the ChAC list -- and behind the ChAC Advice -- is one of deep concern about elements of the transaction and lack of information, concern about the buyer and their plans, and concern for ISOC.    Underlying that is a desire for substantive dialogue -- about the transaction, about PIR post-transaction, about the way in which ISOC handled the transaction, and where ISOC goes from here.  The idea was to stop long enough for the BoT to consider the concerns that the ChAC had been working since December to put it into Advice.

The word "scrupulous" was being used to mean that ChAC leadership was adhering to procedural norms, was not being sloppy or off-hand in its application of the rules, that it was not playing games unscrupulously to manufacture a result. That is why it was so distressing to see you (cleverly) seize on the word "scrupulous," elide it with "meticulous" and twist this into an accusation the ChAC of manipulating the rules to smother dissent or participation (which would hardly show "scruples.").  As you noted three days ago, "adherence to procedural norms minimizes the risks of misinformation and misperception."  I believe that states the goal of ChAC leadership.

Proving "impressions" wrong can sometimes be difficult, since impressions are not necessarily evidence-based -- but in this case, it shouldn't be too difficult.  I will give it a shot in a follow-up email.  I hope you will see that your impressions are wrong.

Finally, my experience with consensus may be less broad than yours, but in the ICANN context, the consensus process of decision-making is not used "primarily with regard to issues around which there is little or no controversy."  Rather, consensus is used for virtually every policy development decision.  There is no sense in the ChAC charter or rules that consensus is limited in the fashion you suggest.  Rather, it is the primary decision making tool.  Interestingly, the ChAC rules offer a "way out" that ICANN's consensus methods do not -- a single statement of opposition forces a vote, with the decision made by a majority vote, with the quorum being 19 delegates.  No such statement was received during the one-week long consensus call.

Best regards,

Greg

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Shatan | President, ISOC-NY

greg at isoc-ny.org 

  <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1CfISkzienX58uUrkiR1MiyDOolyKT7-3&revid=0B34elQ4FY0yVeU96SCtabVdHcXF2NW1LT0FtOUNaa203WmJnPQ> 

"The Internet is for everyone"

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 7:13 PM Mike Godwin via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

First of all, let me apologize for seeming to be clever, or seeming to attempt cleverness.

I take very seriously the fact that many members of this list oppose the sale, and I entirely support their right to oppose it. 

My concern about what seems to me to be efforts to suppress dissent is genuine, but that means that nothing would please me more than to learn that my impressions are incorrect. 

I would prefer to believe that no dissent is being suppressed, procedurally or any other way. I am happy if I can be proved wrong with regard to any of the impressions I have expressed prior to now. 

Please accept both my sincere apology and my reaffirmation of my sincere concerns.

Mike

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 7:02 PM John More <morej1 at mac.com> wrote:

Your aspersions are completely out of bounds.  Your cleverness about due process is only cleverness.

I happen to be a supporter of the sale, since I believe the Trustees had a duty to diversify the assets of ISOC by getting out of the .org business. That is not to say, I think the process could not have been different and the the sort of protections now being implemented were not needed.

I would have welcomed incorporating reflecting whatever dissent you wanted to make, especially if it were supporting the sale.

John More

On Mar 1, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

Richard writes:

'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.'

The notion that scrupulous adherence to due process is a defense is a common argument in Hell. See, e.g., this statement by Grant Gilmore:

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/342530-the-ages-of-american-law-the-storrs-lectures-series

In relevant sentence: "In hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.”

Your argument that that due process was "scrupulously" followed is no comfort to the dissenters whom you participated in suppressing.

Mike

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 5:07 PM John More via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

Juan  

I fully recognize how busy most of us are. There is a difference between the elists which are often loaded with repetitious comments and can be a waste of time. The ChapterAC process for the advice was clear and scrupulously followed. Moreover, it involved relatively minimal time demands except for those of us on the drafting committee. All that was required was to review the draft and send in an email opposition. If there had been opposition expressed, a vote would have been required.

So I agree that silence is not assent, but it is a “consent" that the proposal go forward without a formal vote, especially since withholding consent was fairly easy to do.

I do hope you will be able to be involved if the ChaptersAC has another issue like this one.

Yours,

John More
ISOC-DC

> On 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/

_______________________________________________
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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200302/cce43e55/attachment.htm>