RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] process

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I stand corrected.
May I reword it as the following:
"Even if the majority would consider crap the [economist] report, it would
have full right to think and write so (although I would welcome a gentler
term in the WG report), but it would not have the right to eliminate the
fact that the [economist] report was produced, presented and discussed".
Cheers,
R.



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Eckhaus [mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 03:26
> To: 'roberto@xxxxxxxxx'; 'michael@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
> 
> I also agree with the approach, but do question the idea that 
> "the majority believe the economist report was crap".
> If that was a joke or I am missing something than I apologize 
> in advance
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'Michael Palage' <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
> tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Mon Jul 19 15:32:22 2010
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] process
> 
> 
> 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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any 
> attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or 
> inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any 
> distribution or use of this communication by anyone other 
> than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
> be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
> notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete 
> it from your system. Thank you.