All,
Several of you have raised
questions and concerns about the process used for coming to a conclusion on the
language in Annex 2. We have explained why we have given the CCWG the
opportunity to express views on the various inputs that we received, reflect on
the potential consequences and discuss a way forward. For those interested in the
details, we would kindly refer you to the recording
and transcript.
The fact is that concerns with
the language in Annex 2 have not only been expressed by the Board, so we would
urge everyone to consult the publicly archived mailing list as well as the mp3
and transcript of the call earlier today.
We understand and share the
view that work in the CCWG has been, and still is, exhausting and not as
straightforward or predictable as one would hope. However, work in this
CCWG is not like work on projects in a commercial environment – the journey to
consensus is painful, lengthy and, yes, it takes detours. Stumbling
forward characterizes the multi-stakeholder model and has been part of our work
for the past 14 months. I guess we would all have hoped that there are no bumps
during the last mile, but that is just how our group functions at times.
We would like to congratulate
and thank all of you for expressing your views on this matter. Hearing all views,
particularly those that are controversial, adds to the credibility of the
product of our work because this allowed all colleagues on the calls to make an
informed decision on how to proceed.
On the call, we suggested looking
at two alternatives, both of which have been thoroughly discussed. We then
proceeded to polling and allowed everyone on the call to chime in.
There has been a debate on the
list subsequently about who could participate in the poll and who could
not. You will remember that we clarified that, while everyone could join
the poll, an analysis of the results would be conducted after the call. Yet, we
wanted to collect all "raw data" at the time of the call.
We have now taken a look at the outcome of the poll and confirm that -
focusing on members and participants only and focusing on members in particular
- we have broad support for removal of the language in (2). A statistical analysis can be found below in this e-mail.
As such, the updated Paragraph
72 language is:
The discussion has shown that
parts of the group have opted for this way forward after thorough discussion of
all consequences of what we had in our report.
Some of you might be
disappointed with this, but please remember that we always aimed to be as
inclusive as possible and to work as consensus-driven as possible while coming
to closure as quickly as feasible. That is the co-Chairs' mandate.
Today, the CCWG had the
opportunity to choose the option to ship the report in its 19 February draft
version. It was in the CCWG's hands to ignore the issue that was raised by the
Board and supported by others. The CCWG has chosen to take a different
approach and the co-Chairs certainly cannot ignore the CCWG's wishes.
One final point: Some on the
email list have asked questions about decision thresholds if the number of
decisional participants in the Empowered Community changes from the expected
five SOs/ACs. We draw your attention to the text in Paragraphs 73 and 74 of
Annex 2 in the 19 February draft. This text explicitly notes that any change in
the number of decisional participants would lead to a reconsideration of the
thresholds. A simple understanding of this is that if the number of decisional
participants falls, so will the required level of support for those powers that
today require 4 SOs/ACs to support their use. This is not changed by the
decisions made today about para 72.
We will now proceed and send the finalized report, without (2), to the
Chartering Organizations for approval.
Thank you,
Thomas for León and Mathieu (who is
on leave)
Results of
polling from February 23rd 2016 call of the CCWG-Accountability
Analysis on the 4 questions with 56 casting
votes from the CCWG call of February 23rd:
·
Members
o ALAC
– all 5 present
o ASO
– 2 of 4 present
o ccNSO
– 3 of 5 present
o GAC
– 4 of 5 present
o gNSO
– 5 OF 5 present
o SSAC
– none of 2 present
o Total
present 19 of 26 or 70%
·
Poll
#1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the
slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in
question”)?
o 11
of 56 = 20% total
o 2
of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8%
·
Poll
#2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as
it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph
72)?
o 30
of 56 = 54% total
o 8
of 19 Members = 42%, 8 of 26 = 32%
·
Poll
#3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in
red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action
in question”)?
o 38
of 56 = 68% total
o 11
of 19 Members = 58%, 11 of 26 = 42%
·
Poll
#4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is
currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)?
o 14
of 56 = 25% total
o 2
of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8%