Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
David, I'm not going to comment on the substance of the PIR discussion here, although I largely agree with Greg. But I will comment on the processes at Large uses to address consensus. To a great extent, on most issues, there has been little dissent within At-Large on policy issues (there is at times disagreement on how At-Large or more likely parts of it govern themselves, but that is a different issue for a different time). Despite the widely ranging variation on circumstances, the underlying issues that impact end users (other than access and connectivity which are different but outside of ICANN's remit) are very similar. But on occasion, there are various differing opinions on a particular issue. Sometimes discussion addresses this and we end up with the vast majority of a single mind (the ALS-Mobilization-WP discussions on whether there was a conflict with people or ALSes holding multiple positions within ICANN was one such example). Very occasionally, we are divided and stay that way. There are two outcomes with regard to formal statements made by the ALAC on behalf of At-Large. a) We decide that we must make a statement, but provide both sides/positions with some idea of split proportions. b) We decide not to comment because we are not really in a position to speak on behalf of our divided community and that presenting the division would not really be helpful. Although the ALAC itself at times votes and technically we decide most issues by a majority, I cannot recall a time where that vote was close (on policy issues) and we presented only the "winning" position. Consensus rules the day in most cases, and our rule of thumb is 80% must agree for a consensus to be declared. Perhaps we need to get better at this, or be more precise, but these rules and processes have generally been acceptable for quite some number of years. Alan At 2020-05-03 03:35 PM, David Mackey wrote:
It's hard to see the words "There is mounting concern that ICANN is no longer responsive to the needs of its stakeholders." as being positive for ICANN without thoughtful reflection.
It also seems that the position of the California Attorney General aligns better with the dissent voiced in the At-Large CPWG email thread discussions, rather than the advice that was eventually given to the board.
The final .ORG decision may over, but I hope there's opportunity for a discussion on how to improve the At-Large consensus process.
It appears the dissent voices raised in this email group did, in fact, have merit and were not easily dismissed outside the At-Large community as being merely "passionate".
It might be a good idea to see how we as a community can better encapsulate dissent and non-consensus into our process.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:45 AM Matthias M. Hudobnik <<mailto:matthias@hudobnik.at>matthias@hudobnik.at> wrote:
Well said Jonathan!
Have a nice day!
Best,
M.
_________________________
Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik
<mailto:matthias@hudobnik.at>matthias@hudobnik.at
Von: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jonathan Zuck Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2020 09:49 An: Maureen Hilyard; Dev Anand Teelucksingh Cc: CPWG Betreff: Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
Interesting indeed. I would stress, however, that it might have much to do with our brand (as the sympathetic voice of end users) as it did with our content. Persistence of Perspective!
From: CPWG <<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>devtee@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
Interesting that it was our almost two pages of practical advice from the ALAC that gained the attention of the AG to use as a lash on ICANN than the letters to the Board from the ASO and NCSG.
M
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:43 PM Dev Anand Teelucksingh <<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed, interesting and noteworthy to point out that ALAC statements do have impact.
Its a pity because the PDF of the ALAC statement is on the wiki, the link is <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ISOC+Sells+PIR?preview=/120821713/126423106/ALAC%20Advice%20to%20the%20ICANN%20Board%20on%20the%20ISOC%3APIR%20Issue%20-%20FINAL%20310120.pdf>https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ISOC+Sells+PIR?preview=/120821713/126423106/ALAC%20Advice%20to%20the%20ICANN%20Board%20on%20the%20ISOC%3APIR%20Issue%20-%20FINAL%20310120.pdf
Dev Anand
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:44 PM Marita Moll <<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Wow, quite a slap down by the AG of California. ALAC advice re: this issue referenced as reasons for concern.
Marita
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On May 4, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Perhaps we need to get better at this, or be more precise, but these rules and processes have generally been acceptable for quite some number of years.
Selection bias. They’re acceptable to the people who don’t leave in frustration. At 2020-05-03 03:35 PM, David Mackey wrote:
It seems that the position of the California Attorney General aligns better with the dissent voiced in the At-Large CPWG email thread discussions, rather than the advice that was eventually given to the board.
Yep. Because the CA AG is charged with upholding the public interest.
The final .ORG decision may over
? The board _invited_ ISOC to try again with a non-Fadi-associated PE fund. And has been completely ignoring all of the requests to run the normal multistakeholder competition. Very hard for me to imagine that there’s anyone outside ISOC and a few lobbyists and the ICANN board who imagine that we’re in anything other than the briefest of respites.
I hope there's opportunity for a discussion on how to improve the At-Large consensus process.
Oh, I imagine there’ll be _discussion_.
It appears the dissent voices raised in this email group did, in fact, have merit and were not easily dismissed outside the At-Large community as being merely "passionate".
Likewise true of the larger conversation.
It might be a good idea to see how we as a community can better encapsulate dissent and non-consensus into our process.
Or just actually represent consensus, rather than only consensus-of-lobbyists. -Bill
Alan, Thank you very much for your informative response. I believe you’re heading in a direction that may lead to a productive conversation about the At-Large consensus process which has nothing to do with the content of any specific policies. I see how you may feel like a broken record repeating the many things you just said about our current process that you’ve probably said over and over for many years. It’s my understanding that the At-Large consensus process is currently undocumented, and as such, I fear you are at risk of having to repeat yourself again in the future … unless we look into the creation of a document that records your knowledge of the process and the knowledge of other seasoned At-Large members. I am very reluctant to see any process document be used as another “rule book” to delay the creation of timely policy. However, I do believe there’s an opportunity to create a document that describes the high level interactions expected in any At-Large consensus building policy discussion. If the nature of the document remains high level, then there’s an opportunity to record the community’s common understanding of how the process works. This document would be available for reference in future cases of highly controversial policy debate, and it could be used by new members to understand the culture of our community … “The Spirit of At-Large”. Evin recently sent out a “Consensus Playbook <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-4-consensus-playbook-21apr20-en.pdf>” which originated from GNSO’s Policy Development Process 3.0 initiative. I’m not sure we want to adopt this particular document, but it serves as an example of what can be considered. A very different example of a consensus process document comes from the IETF in RFC 7282, “On Consensus and Humming in the IETF” <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282>. I tend to favour this type of document, because it records institutional traditions and is an “Informational” only document, which means it doesn’t directly play into the procedural operations of the IETF. However, I do believe that recording the cultural norms of the community is a worthwhile exercise with tangible benefits to our productivity. Cheers! David On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:50 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
David, I'm not going to comment on the substance of the PIR discussion here, although I largely agree with Greg.
But I will comment on the processes at Large uses to address consensus.
To a great extent, on most issues, there has been little dissent within At-Large on policy issues (there is at times disagreement on how At-Large or more likely parts of it govern themselves, but that is a different issue for a different time). Despite the widely ranging variation on circumstances, the underlying issues that impact end users (other than access and connectivity which are different but outside of ICANN's remit) are very similar.
But on occasion, there are various differing opinions on a particular issue. Sometimes discussion addresses this and we end up with the vast majority of a single mind (the ALS-Mobilization-WP discussions on whether there was a conflict with people or ALSes holding multiple positions within ICANN was one such example).
Very occasionally, we are divided and stay that way. There are two outcomes with regard to formal statements made by the ALAC on behalf of At-Large.
a) We decide that we must make a statement, but provide both sides/positions with some idea of split proportions.
b) We decide not to comment because we are not really in a position to speak on behalf of our divided community and that presenting the division would not really be helpful.
Although the ALAC itself at times votes and technically we decide most issues by a majority, I cannot recall a time where that vote was close (on policy issues) and we presented only the "winning" position. Consensus rules the day in most cases, and our rule of thumb is 80% must agree for a consensus to be declared.
Perhaps we need to get better at this, or be more precise, but these rules and processes have generally been acceptable for quite some number of years.
Alan
At 2020-05-03 03:35 PM, David Mackey wrote:
It's hard to see the words "There is mounting concern that ICANN is no longer responsive to the needs of its stakeholders." as being positive for ICANN without thoughtful reflection.
It also seems that the position of the California Attorney General aligns better with the dissent voiced in the At-Large CPWG email thread discussions, rather than the advice that was eventually given to the board.
The final .ORG decision may over, but I hope there's opportunity for a discussion on how to improve the At-Large consensus process.
It appears the dissent voices raised in this email group did, in fact, have merit and were not easily dismissed outside the At-Large community as being merely "passionate".
It might be a good idea to see how we as a community can better encapsulate dissent and non-consensus into our process.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:45 AM Matthias M. Hudobnik <matthias@hudobnik.at> wrote:
Well said Jonathan!
Have a nice day!
Best,
M.
_________________________
Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik
matthias@hudobnik.at
Von: CPWG [ mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org <cpwg-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Jonathan Zuck Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2020 09:49 An: Maureen Hilyard; Dev Anand Teelucksingh Cc: CPWG Betreff: Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
Interesting indeed. I would stress, however, that it might have much to do with our brand (as the sympathetic voice of end users) as it did with our content. Persistence of Perspective!
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Date: Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
Interesting that it was our almost two pages of practical advice from the ALAC that gained the attention of the AG to use as a lash on ICANN than the letters to the Board from the ASO and NCSG.
M
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:43 PM Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed, interesting and noteworthy to point out that ALAC statements do have impact.
Its a pity because the PDF of the ALAC statement is on the wiki, the link is
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ISOC...
Dev Anand
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:44 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Wow, quite a slap down by the AG of California. ALAC advice re: this issue referenced as reasons for concern.
Marita
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bill Woodcock -
David Mackey