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

["Tina Dam" <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tin Wee, I was simply trying to avoid double work by deleting an item that
was already covered.

Tina 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tan Tin Wee
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:35 AM
> To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Meaning of something being at support level
> 
> 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.
> > 
> > 
>