Dear Co-Chairs/ All

I understand that the Chairs will right now be busy drafting a report to submit for the CCWG meeting tomorrow indicating consensus on the questionnaire as seems to have been agreed in today's call. Since I made a formal objection to the process, I will like to clarify the basis of my objection, putting it on record.

My objection mainly arises from the fact that that the jurisdiction sub-group seems to be deciding a new, innovative, and completely unjust, rule for its working. It apparently has decided that in taking public/ community input into its work, it will accept only such inputs that are fully and exclusively based on actual occurrences/ instances that can be proven to have happened in the past. I expect that, in the typical creeping acquisition way, this new rule would then also be applied to the discussions, and to making recommendations, by the group itself. 

This is a unique and significant epistemological stance. Importantly, such a stance was not applied to the work of work-stream I of CCWG, for coming up with a new accountability mechanism. It was never insisted that only such "facts" as arise from actual occurrences in the past can be the basis of suggesting any institutional change.

Even in other groups of work-stream 2, like those dealing with transparency, human rights framework, etc, it is not a condition that any institutional change has to be based on facts arising from actual "verifiable occurrences" in the past, and the implications arising thereof. I have some passing acquaintance about the stage of outputs from the subgroups on transparency and human rights, and I know for a fact that there has never been a condition that any institutional innovation can only arise from "verifiable occurrences" in the past, absent which no change can be suggested or made.  

In the circumstance, it is question of fairness and natural justice, to ask why a jurisdiction related institutional change can only be based on facts that directly arise from clearly verifiable past occurrences. What is so special about jurisdiction related institutional changes - which is the mandate of a separate sub group, and about which issue many actors were insistent since the very start that it should be given full consideration?

I am happy to shown otherwise, but right now I can only think that this is being done with the intention to fend off the discussion going in directions that certain actors fear would not serve their interests. If one fears losing a case on cannons of reason, justice and preponderance of public opinion, the best thing to do - if one is powerful enough -  is to simply change the rules of how a decision process will be conducted, and what are the legitimate or illegitimate inputs into it. That is exactly what has been done in this case. It strains the credibility of ICANN's so called open process; whose first rule seems to be, throw so much resources at any important issue as to overwhelm any discussion about it, and then, if "problems" persist, simply change the rules and frame new ones, as has been done in this case. I cannot accept that an ICANN WG cannot trust the community/ public to give their free and unconstrained views on a key issue central to its mandate. And that it should resort to making novel, and absurd rules, about what can and what cannot be said by the public/ community as inputs into its work. This especially when in very similar parallel processes there exists no such rule. This new rule changes the very basis of the working of this sub group, and almost completely hamstrings it.

parminder