[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice
Mike Godwin
mnemonic at gmail.com
Mon Mar 2 04:03:36 PST 2020
Greg, I appreciate your lengthy response, which I take quite seriously as a
rebuttal to my impressions, expressed earlier, regarding what seemed to me
the suppression of dissent.
I hope it may be taken as grounds for forgiveness of my misunderstandings
that, in my own work, I encounter such suppression quite often, which may
predispose me to interpret uses of procedure as dissent when in fact
that's not the case.
Mike
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:04 AM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
> Apologies in advance for length, but I wanted to get some of the facts out
> in response to the weighty allegation of the suppression of dissent.
>
> In considering the issue of the ChAC's procedures and the alleged
> "suppression" of "dissent," I first suggest reading Eduardo Diaz's
> comprehensive email earlier Sunday. Second, I suggest looking at Section 6
> of the ChAC's Rules and Procedures, which covers ChAC decisionmaking. It
> is not long, and I think it is pretty clear:
>
> Substantive decisions, in particular regarding advice and recommendations,
> shall be made by the AC. Decisions may be made by electronic means (e.g.
> E-Mail, electronic voting systems, etc.) or during remote (audio/video
> conferencing) or physical meetings. Decisions shall normally be taken by
> consensus (meaning lack of formal opposition). If consensus cannot be
> achieved, then the Chair of the AC Steering Committee shall organize a
> vote. In case of voting, decisions shall be taken by a majority vote of the
> delegates to the AC. The quorum shall be nineteen (19) delegates. In case
> of tie, the matter will be resubmitted for discussion and a new vote. Votes
> will be secret. The tally of votes (for, against, abstain, did not vote)
> will be published. Abstentions will be counted towards determining the
> quorum.
>
>
> That's the whole thing. There are two key points for the current
> discussion:
>
> - *Decisions shall normally be taken by consensus (meaning lack of
> formal opposition)*.
> - This states that the normal process used for decisions is
> "consensus."
> - This defines "consensus" as the "lack of formal opposition."
> - If there is "formal opposition," then consensus has not been
> achieved, and the question must go to a vote.
>
>
> - *If consensus cannot be achieved, then the Chair of the AC Steering
> Committee shall organize a vote*.
> - Voting decision is made by a majority of those voting, as long as
> there is a quorum.
> - A quorum is 19 delegates.
>
> Without going through the whole timeline, the issue had been discussed on
> the ChAC list prior to the December 17 meeting and occupied a good portion
> of that meeting.
>
> - A 9-person drafting team was formed directly after the Dec 17
> meeting and worked on the advice for several weeks and several drafts.
> - The draft advice was the sent to the entire ChAC for discussion and
> comments from Jan 30 to Feb 7. There were many comments and discussions
> during this time.
> - The Drafting Team took these into account in preparing a further
> revision of the Advice, which was submitted to the Steering Committee.
> - On Feb 16, the SC issued a consensus call ending at 16:00 UTC on Feb
> 23. The email stated "Please let us know if you object to any
> individual advice or all of the advice and provide the reasoning for the
> objection."
> - On Feb 20, Eduardo sent a reminder on 20 Feb.
> - From Feb 16, various statements of support or non-objection were
> received.
> - On 21 Feb, Franca Palazzo wrote, "I am the Chapter Leader for
> Internet Society Canada Chapter and would like ask for an extension on the
> consensus call. Given today's press release, I believe further discussion
> is reasonable and required."
> - Richard Hill responded about 35 minutes later, with an email stating
> "I respectfully disagree regarding delaying the consensus call. To
> begin with, I don't think that the advice on Consultation and Bylaw Changes
> is affected by the press release. Regarding the advice on PIR Sale, as far
> as I can tell, the proposed ICANN PIC would only implement the part of the
> ChAC advice that relates to binding commitments, namely point 1. It does
> not relate to the other points, which are about openness and
> transparency. I don't know whether Ethos developed the proposed PICs
> through some sort of consultation, but I haven't heard of any consultation.
> Proposing PICs that have not been consulted is not exactly in line with
> ChAC advice point 1. Figuring out whether we need to redraft the advice
> in light of the recent announcement will take time. We can consider that
> matter after the consensus call. In fact, it would be easier to redraft and
> submit a new version to the Board after the consensus call, than to stop
> everything now in order to redraft. Recall that the Board always has the
> option to send the advice back to ChAC, with comments, asking ChAC to
> reconsider and revert with modified advice. So I submit that the consensus
> call should not be delayed."
> - Eduardo responded just after Richard, asking "Franca: Can you be
> more explicit? How long of a delay? Is the delay for all advice or just the
> one concerned with the PIR sale? This information will help the ChAC-SC
> decide on this. Thanks." [There is no response from Franca on the list.]
> - About an hour after that, I responded, agreeing with Richard.
> Several hours later there were two other agreements.
> - After that, there were several more emails with support or
> non-objection, but no further mention of a delay.
> - On Feb 23 at 15:18 UTC, the Yemen Chapter requested a delay, which
> was acknowledged by Eduardo. [Note: all time are based on my email inbox,
> as MemberNova inexplicably and frustratingly does not display the dates and
> times of emails on its lists, only the number of "days ago" an email was
> sent.]
> - On Feb 23 at 17:45 UTC, Eduardo wrote that the Canada, DC and Yemen
> Chapters had requested a delay to allow additional time to discuss the
> Ethos Capital press release, but that the consensus call would not be
> extended past the original deadline, which had passed at 16:00 UTC.
> Eduardo thanked everyone for participating in this bottom-up consultative
> process. [I did not see an email from the DC Chapter so this must have been
> communicated to the SC off-list.]
> - Some time later on Feb 23, Trinidad & Tobago wrote that the chapter
> does not support the recommendations.
> - Eduardo responded: "Niran: The ISOC Trinidad and Tobago Chapter
> objection was submitted after the 16:00 UTC deadline. Unfortunately, we can
> not accept it as part of the consensus call. I presume that additional
> discussions/announcements will follow the Advice just sent. The ChAC-SC
> will make sure to continue consulting with the full ChAC as this happens
> going forward."
> - The DC Chapter then wrote "Unfortunately I did not have access
> earlier today. For what it is worth the DC Chapter requests that there be
> a vote."
> - Eduardo responded: "John: There were no objections received by the
> set deadline so there was no need to turn the consensus call into a
> vote. Thank you for your note."
> - Two other emails with support or non-objection were also received
> after the deadline.
>
> Mike Godwin states "I take Juan’s objections here—as I take Franca’s and
> Solomon’s—quite seriously." The primary point stated by each of them was
> that "silence is not consent." However, this is not a challenge to the
> determination of consensus in this (or any other) case, since consensus (as
> stated in the rules) is defined by the lack of formal opposition. While
> silence may not be consent, silence is clearly a lack of formal
> opposition. Therefore, the consensus determination was correct.
>
> (I will note that while Franca did respond to the consensus call, Juan and
> Solomon did not (and Solomon does not appear on the list of ChAC members,
> as Zimbabwe has no listed representative).) It also appeared that Juan and
> Solomon felt that their chapters did not have the time or resources to
> participate in the discussion. (This, of course, raises wider issues for
> ISOC with regard to engagement and capacity-building far beyond this
> thread.)
>
> While Franca did state, on Feb 27, that the Canadian Chapter did not
> necessarily agree with this submission in its entirety, neither Juan nor
> Solomon objected to the substance of the submission. As only Canada and
> Trinidad & Tobago stated objections, and neither did so during the
> consensus call, I cannot see evidence of "strong dissent—which may of
> course represent less than a majority of interests—regarding ChAC’s
> recommendations." This seems to be a serious overstatement of the
> situation.
>
> I do not see in this narrative any attempt to stifle dissent, or even
> anything that would support an impression of such an attempt. I see in the
> consensus call thread a couple of extension requests and a single, untimely
> objection. I don't think it was a fair statement that Franca was "pounced
> on" when two polite emails were sent in disagreement.
>
> Yes, there were some judgment calls made by the SC, which decided to
> follow its process and the sentiment of the vast majority of the
> respondents, including those who opposed the requests for delay (which had
> extremely limited support). But I can't see this as stifling dissent --
> which implies an abuse of power. I think consensus was applied in a
> reasonable manner, and it should be kept in mind that this call followed
> earlier periods when objections could have been raised. The consensus call
> invited objections, and the rules note the need for formal opposition. This
> was not forthcoming, so there is no basis to establish either strong
> dissent or the stifling thereof.
>
> Given the above and many other email responses, I think that the burden of
> proof is (as it should have been) on those who claim that dissent was being
> suppressed, procedurally or in some other way.
>
> In putting this together, I am again struck by the fact that this advice,
> while fairly strong medicine, was seen as part of a dialogue with the BoT.
> I encourage us all to go back to the substance of the matters at hand and
> not to spend much more time on this post mortem. While it is important to
> consider such concerns as were raised, at some point we are in the weeds,
> down a rabbit hole and beating a dead horse. Meanwhile, there are bigger
> fish to fry, and the house is on fire (or maybe it's just the fried fish,
> but either way, that is where our attention needs to go).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Greg Shatan | President, ISOC-NY*
> greg at isoc-ny.org
>
>
> *"The Internet is for everyone"*
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>> *"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/20200302/395f764d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list