RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] process

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

Agree with your caution regarding minority reports. Regarding the
economist call, there are other ways of looking at it, but it doesn't
really matter. The WG decided to keep it in the report, but as a
footnote.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:32 pm
To: "'Michael Palage'" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


I have no problems with minority reports. But I also believe that they
have
a very specific purpose: to show existing positions that are different
from
the views expressed by the majority.
I would challenge the concept of producing personal contributions on
something, and smuggle it into the report as "minority view". Of course,
I
am not suggesting that this is the intention of Avri (or anybody else),
I am
just showing where this discussion could lead us if we go to the extreme
cases of "principle" about proliferation of minority reports.
As such, I would consider fair to anticipate to the co-chairs (if not to
the
whole group) what the scope of the minority view is, and it is the duty
of
the co-chairs to check whether there is a possibility to reconcile
views.
While I wait to have more details on the procedural and substantial
matters
that forced Avri to take her current position, I make the assumption
that
great part of the problem is the decision on the management of the
economist
report. I have already stated in the call that, IMHO, this is not a
matter
that can be decided with a majority vote, and even less with an informal
straw poll on the participants of a single teleconference. I would
strongly
recommend members to consider that one thing is the fact that a report
has
been provided, presented during a teleconference and discussed, and the
other is the opinion of the majority about the contents and value of the
report. The majority has full right to consider crap the [economist]
report
(although I would welcome a gentler term in the WG report), but has not
the
right to eliminate the fact that the [economist] report was produced,
presented and discussed.
My question to the people who oppose the [economist] report is: "What
would
be the harm in providing the report as annex, while in the text we
indicate
that the WG has a majority against the report?".
I confess that I don't understand why this solution could not be
acceptable.
Actually, if I were against a specific position paper, I would much
prefer
to have the paper documented somewhere, with a statement that it was
rejected, rather than to omit it altogether. In this latter case the WG
could be accused later on of having disregarded evidence, while in the
former case the WG clearly documented that it accepted and considered
evidence, but came to a different conclusion. In one case it is a
procedural
fault, to be condemned, in the other case a judgement call, to be
accepted.

Best regards,
Roberto




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Palage
> Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 21:45
> To: <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I believe the PDP specifically calls for the inclusion of 
> minority reports.
> 
> So your basis for exluding minority reports seems to be we 
> rushed the process to fast that there was not meaningful time 
> for comments in connection with both major and minor viewpoints.
> 
> Somehow I fail to see how this "process" complies with the 
> obligations set forth in the Affirmation of Commitments.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:00 PM, "Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" 
> <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I too have issues that I don't want to disclose until its 
> too late for 
> > anyone to respond.
> >
> > Can we all submit minority reports?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- 
> > feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:40 PM
> > To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have asked to include a minority report as part of the overall 
> > report.
> > That will detail the issues.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> > On 19 Jul 2010, at 14:32, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >
> >> Avri,
> >>
> >> Can you please provide us with a little bit more detail on the 
> >> issues you
> > have?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> >>
> >>
> >> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only 
> >> for the
> > use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain 
> confidential and/ 
> > or
> > privileged information. If you are not the intended 
> recipient you have
> > received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
> > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 
> prohibited. If 
> > you have
> > received this communication in error, please notify us 
> immediately and
> > delete the original message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:03 PM
> >> To: Mike O'Connor; Roberto Gaetano
> >> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Just to let you know, I have dropped off the phone call in 
> response 
> >> to
> > what I believe is a circus that cannot producte a meaningful report.
> >>
> >> I will be protesting the legitimacy of the report and its 
> >> conclusions.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >