Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] On topic - Minority Reports

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps this discussion should be moved over to the PDP-WT, but I think knowing 
minority viewpoints earlier in the process prior to public comment is helpful.  
Although something may be a "minority" viewpoint in the WG, it is possible that 
public comment can prove that view is not the minority outside of the WG.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Vanda UOL <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>; Avri 
Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon Jul 26 11:20:06 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] On topic  - Minority Reports


It seems to me that what we are discussing relates largely to timing.  Minority 
reports too early in the process can be an indication that the goal of trying 
to develop positions that address most concerns may not be happening, a point I 
think that Roberto is making.  On the other hand, once a group has finished its 
work, it is important that the final report communicate not only in consensus 
positions, if any, but also minority positions.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanda UOL [mailto:vanda@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 10:25 AM
> To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] On topic - Minority Reports
> 
> Roberto,
>  Though I am with you as a general concept, I don't see the minority
> report
> as a governance fail - minority is there to appoint relevant issues
> which
> consensus may go  into the detriment of a majority, which  happens to
> be
> represented by a minority of the voters.
> In these cases, the presence of minority report to be sent to another
> instance to be defined, instead of be a governance fail is exactly the
> opposite: a good governance which offers to the consideration of final
> judgment the views of such majority.
> 
> Kisses and enjoy your summer
> 
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend
>  Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
> Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253
> Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:55 PM
> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] On topic - Minority Reports
> 
> 
> This is a serious discussion that has not to be dismissed with formal
> statements.
> I have to confess I have mixed feelings about minority reports. This
> will
> surprise many that know where I am coming from.
> I believe that although it is the right of every minority position to
> be
> reflected in minority reports, the priority is still in reaching a
> consensus, and reflect as much as possible the minority positions in
> the
> global (as opposed to majority) report.
> The way the internet community, and ICANN with it, is working is the
> consensus of the stakeholders. Not the opinionb of the majority, to
> which
> the minority has no other chance than the presentation of a minority
> position.
> As a co-chair, I would consider a major failure of my co-chairmanship
> the
> presentation of a minority report, not because of the contents of the
> report, but simply because of the evidence that the WG report was
> unable to
> accommodate all points of wiew.
> I think people went a long way in trying to drop some of their initial
> requirements to achieve consensus. We are not yet ther, but we are
> moving
> towards it. I appreciate Avri's decision to withdraw her intention to
> present a minority report, and I fully understand her personal dilemma
> in
> what to do, as it has not been an easy decision.
> But I also have to applaud all the folks who have given up some points
> in
> the effort to compromise. Some folks have never "threatened" to leave
> and
> present a position from the "outside", but have silently listened and
> worked
> for the common good.
> In summary, I think that it is a *good thing* to point out when things
> get
> so much out of hand that a minority report seems to be the only
> solution to
> the inefficiency of the co-chairs to summarize in a consensus position
> the
> status of the team, but it is an even *better thing* to see that a
> common
> position has been found in the end.
> I am personally enjoying a week of vacation with the family, so my
> contribution in the next few days will be low, but maybe I will write a
> few
> lines on an event I have witnessed some 10 days ago that might be
> relevant
> to our group: the concert Muti has give in Trieste with the attendance
> of
> the Presidents of Italy, Slovenia and Croatia, with the outspoken
> objective
> to overcome the historical differences among these countries and to
> bring to
> solution the pending issues, dating from WW2.
> Best regards,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: Friday, 23 July 2010 19:14
> > To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Off Topic - Minority Reports
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Nenhum vírus encontrado nessa mensagem recebida.
> Verificado por AVG - www.avgbrasil.com.br
> Versão: 9.0.851 / Banco de dados de vírus: 271.1.1/3027 - Data de
> Lançamento: 07/25/10 15:36:00