[Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice

Mon Mar 2 04:12:27 PST 2020

Richard, I appreciate your referring me to the 19-page document's summary
of the different views.

I hope I may be forgiven for having possibly misread the use of "unanimous"
and "full" in characterizing ChAC's recommendations, given that "unanimous"
and "full" did not seem to me to be accurate in light of the disagreements
among members that I was aware of.

I hope that over time my personal failures in misreading various mailing
lists--which I undertake to be an engaged member of the community--are not
ascribed to ISOC or the board of trustees generally.

Thank you for your response.

Mike Godwin

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:51 AM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Dear Mike,
>
>
>
> I submit that the document containing the advice to the Board contains
> ample internal evidence to show that all views were captured: about 10
> pages of the 19-page documents consist of an account of the diverging
> views, concluding with the following summary:
>
>
>
> “ Finally, and most importantly, people who posted to the list are divided
> as to how to proceed. The diverging views do not fall into neat categories,
> but perhaps can be summarized as follows
>
> a) Stop the sale: ISOC should retain .ORG as at present.
>
> B )The sale should not take place until all relevant documents and
> information have been made public, and the ISOC Board of Trustees has taken
> into account the comments made by the ISOC constituencies
>
> c) The sale should take place, but Ethos and the new PIR should be bound
> to respect either the initial conditions under which .ORG was delegated to
> ISOC, or some other set of conditions designed to protect the public
> interest nature of .ORG.
>
> d) The sale should proceed as proposed.”
>
>
>
> The advice submitted to the Board reflects the less extreme positions.
>
>
>
> The process used to develop the document was well described by Greg in his
> previous post, so I won’t repeat that here.  I will however underline that
> the editing team included both people who are strongly opposed to the sale,
> and people who don’t see much of a problem with the sale.
>
>
>
> If you want to see how the document evolved, and how comments were
> accommodated during the editing process, you can look at the Box folder
> which contains the successive versions of the document. I presume that
> staff can give you access to that folder, if you don’t already have access.
>
>
>
> I trust that your sincere concern regarding the ChAC process has been
> addressed.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I remain sincerely concerned about (1) the process used
> to make the deal (2) the effects of the deal on .ORG registrants and (3)
> the reputational damage to ISOC.  And I have to say that your interventions
> have exacerbated rather than allayed my concerns.
>
>
> 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 01:13
> *To:* John More
> *Cc:* ISOC Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ChAC-SC Advice notice
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200302/d280be25/attachment.htm>