Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Off Topic - Minority Reports

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Couple of points on this  ALAC view first ->  we have always supported
 the attachment of Minority Views to Reports  to do otherwise is simply
NOT transparent and in our experience maladaptive for any future work;
 Secondly in the work of the PDP=WT that I have been involved in the same
sentiment has been discussed and upheld and I can envisage no outcome of
that work supported by me that would do otherwise; and finally but by no
means least, re the tone or context of one speaker in a recent VI meeting
 we need to remember that one voice or attitude in a WG should never be seen
as getting wholesale support unless people indicate agreement to the
persuasive nature of what has been said or proposed... We perhaps should
have reacted rather than ignored things said at various points in time in
the work to date of the VI  but please do not assume that lack of reactivity
to a statement made to the record equates to agreement to the sentiment or
support for the opinion, we all should remember it does not..  But I do
think we need to ensure this is (re) discussed in the VI -WG  and the PDP-WT
this does have my support...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 24 July 2010 03:13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> In my experience in the GNSO, minority positions have always been
> allowed and I believe that for transparency and accountability reasons
> they should continued to be allowed. Minority positions just like more
> strongly supported positions are all part of the WG record and I can see
> no reason not to include them if any WG member or set of WG members
> wants them in the report.  Readers of the report should have the
> opportunity to weigh the value of the minority position on their own
> just as they would with other positions.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> > feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:20 AM
> > To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Off Topic - Minority Reports
> >
> >
> >
> > I have waited to write this until the report was released.
> >
> > From what little of the call I could be on yesterday, I heard a
> > discussion that could have a chilling effect related to minority
> > reports.
> >
> > One member of the group told us that he was sick of being threatened
> by
> > minority reports.  I personally find this disturbing, and not only
> > because I had considered submitting such a report at one point in
> time.
> >
> > The critical importance of minority reports has been recognized as the
> > only prevention from tyranny of the majority.  While we know that that
> > the majority is always right in a democratic process because that is
> > the definition of a democratic process, it does not mean that the
> > minority may not have a valid point to make.  While this overwhelming
> > rightness-by-defnition is even more the case in situations of rough
> > consensus, I believe that only makes recognition of the voice of a
> > minority that can respond to the voice of overwhelming majority even
> > more important.
> >
> > One might argue that they don't have a problem with minority reports,
> > they just feel that pre-announcing it is a threat or an argument
> > technique.  And it is true that it might be.  But if someone does it
> > all the time, the value of that announcement will decrease in value.
> > It someone is either always announcing one and pulling back, or is
> > always writing them, their value is decreased.    So while it is a
> tool
> > that can be used whenever anyone wants, it is also a tool that
> > decreases in value the more often it is used. And frankly, would
> people
> > prefer for minority reports to show up unannounced after all was said
> > and done?  It seems that only right thing to do is to declare the
> > intention of creating such a report.
> >
> > Then the question comes down to discussing ones reason for a minority
> > report before actually submitting.  Several people on this list spoke
> > harshly of my plan to submit one as a sandbagging if I did not explain
> > my issues so that there was the ability to discuss.  I think this was
> > right even though it had not been my original intent to explain.  What
> > makes a minority report valid is that it expresses an issue or concern
> > that the writer feels was not adequately understood and reflected upon
> > by the group.  As a minority of one, I had the responsibility to
> > express my issue as clearly and completely as I could.  And I had the
> > responsibility to work toward compromise if this was possible.
> >
> > I have been part of the GNSO 'Improvements' Working Group work team
> and
> > feel that the use of minority reports is an important ingredient in
> > ICANN processes.  Just as postpartum reflections on the process are.
> > As we are only at a temporary annealing point in this process, it is
> > not yet time for this reflection hence I labeled it  "Off Topic."  But
> > I feel this group has been exemplary i because of size, timing and the
> > crucial importance of its issue, so I wanted to put this note into the
> > record for use when it is time for WG self-analysis.  I also wanted to
> > try and stem the type of behavior that attempts to bully* those who
> put
> > in minority reports by subjecting them to abusive tones and attitudes.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > * Not that either Anthony or I can be easily bullied.  But the next
> > person might be. And not that I want anyone in authority to prevent
> > such abusive  behaviors, though I do hope people can decide to self
> > modulate.
>
>