Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Meaning of something being at support level

[Tan Tin Wee <tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Avri... this is the due process, to diligently
record assenting as well as dissenting voices, so that in
the ultimate consideration by the powers higher up, that
should they take a decision one way or the other, they can
weigh the consequence and impact of their decisions.

Deleting whole chunks of what we have deliberated on
because we are worried about some impatient councillor
is simply to obliterate any dissenting voices, and
this will do far more injustice than what Cary mentioned
about wasting council's bandwidth and thereby losing
their attention because recording dissenting voices
adds too much verbiage... unless, of course, he and
Tina knows something we don't, that we should be
better off deleting them all?



Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have had certain parts of the meeting suggesting that various 
> statements of support be removed.   If these were statements of 
> agreement, then i would understand someone arguing to have them degraded 
> to support only.  But if there is a statement of support for something, 
> then it is understood that some people will disagree with it; otherwise, 
> by definition, it would be a statement of agreement. and often during 
> the meeting when I disagreed with a particular statement of support i 
> did not say anything whereas if it was a statement of agreement I would 
> have.
>
> As I suggested in an earlier message, it is appropriate for the people 
> who don't support some statement to add an alternate statement, even one 
> that politely explains why they think the support statement is brain 
> dead.  I do not think it is appropriate to remove a support statement 
> because someone disagrees with it.  I guess that is why I will argue 
> against removing any statement that has support, even if I don't agree 
> with it totally or even at all.
>
> a.