ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process

  • To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:27:06 -0400


I feel that the disingenuous attitude of those who have been competing for 
their Registry vs. Registrar position just went one step too far with the 
exclusion of the S&W materials today.  From my viewpoint some have been doing 
their best to exclude material and viewpoints they did not approve of from the 
beginning: whether it was excluding people for word usage, excluding polls 
because the did not match some unheard standard of scientific selection, or now 
the exclusion of economists viewpoint they did not like but for which they 
never offered a countering view - waiting until the last minute to exclude the 
info from the report.  The number of things people want excluded from the 
report so that no one outside the group reads them is disturbing and something 
I want to document.  The report should be complete report of what was discussed 
and not pruned to favor one point of view.  Given todays' activities, I no 
longer believe there is a way to dust this off so hanging in there would have 
been disingenuous on my part.  So I become a minority who stands in opposition 
to the process that is producing this report.  

Day by day I watched as the group process was abused but still I hoped.  It 
wasn't until today that the one last straw was cast.  I do not believe this 
report will represent the view of a group that genuinely tried to reach 
consensus and will use the minority report to say so.


On 19 Jul 2010, at 16:43, Ron Andruff wrote:

> I have no disagreement with anyone having the right to file a minority
> report, but I don't understand - based on what I heard on the call today -
> why you feel any information is being suppressed, Avri?  What was discussed
> today was whether certain information - devoid of all of the background
> discussions/list comments, etc. -would be of value or create confusion for
> the GNSO Council, Board or community member who chooses to read the Interim
> Report.
> As a result I am simply perplexed by your "walking out of the room" without
> explanation.  Would be grateful to see all WG members hang in there until we
> get this done and dusted, as they say.
> Kind regards,
> RA
> Ronald N. Andruff
> President
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue
> New York, New York 10001
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:06 PM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
> hi all,
> i've run pretty far "up thread" on purpose.
> a critical component of consensus is that minority viewpoints are heard and
> honored.  
> any and all minority reports will be included in the Initial Report and are
> subject to the same deadline that the rest of the report is -- by the end of
> the Thursday call.
> having participated in a task force in which i came extremely close to
> writing a minority report, i know that it's a very hard decision to make.
> please refrain from making light of Avri's decision.
> thanks,
> mikey
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have asked to include a minority report as part of the overall report.
> That will detail the issues.
>> a.
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> etc.)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy