Re: [gnso-osc] Final response to the CCT
If we, the GNSO, are being asked to simply adopt the Ombudsman's standard, then the answer from NCSG is "No". We feel the Ombudsman's standard is sub-standard as it does not recognize the need for tolerance and places political correctness above free expression and truth in policy discussions. So NCSG believes the Ombudsman's standard does not adequately capture the best spirit of discussion. The GNSO is not under any obligation to accept the Ombudsman's view of acceptable discussion if it does not adequately respect tolerance in our view. Best, Robin On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: Re Tolerance Colleagues,There seems to be some misunderstanding. Please note my comment on this wasintended explicitly to promote tolerance not negate it ! What I had said was:2.5.7 "Encourage the understanding of opposing perspectives, while maintaining aspirit of cooperation and civility"This is highly sensitive and could be distracting. We should go NO further thanwording in the ICANN's published Standards of Behavior.If there is an issue with ICANN's published Standards of Behavior then thatshould be a separate dialogue with the Ombudsman office. ------------------------In other words: my recommendation was that there is no need for an additional work item for the GNSO given the existence of excellent set of standards fromthe Ombudsman office. http://www.icann.org/en/transparencyA better reference would be a simple recommendation for the GNSO council toformally adopt these standards.In the BC's recent charter revisions we adopted these standards. Have otherconstituencies also done so? Yours, an ever so tolerant (and somewhat relaxed) Philip IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|