[governance] Re: ITU IPv6 "Consensus"

Eric Dierker cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Fri Mar 19 13:29:25 EDT 2010

This is most excellent and I appreciate your candor. I agree with your PS. 
I think in the last decade we have lost a lot of respect for the individual.  It is not by decree or intentions. But from the best I can tell it is by a truly positive desire for consensus.  This hard concept between how we reach "scientific" agreement and how we reach "democratic" motion in our "soft" sciences.  
The problem comes about in these drafts or position papers. There is an involuntary yet pervasive need to wipe out individual mindset and brilliance in order to achieve this elusive declaration of consensus.  It becomes a publish or perish group mindset that of necessity ignores personal accountability for a particular notion -- no ego ownership.
So I would ask that you look harder and throw some vigor into your personal preference. That we begin not just keeping notes but also invite and support and encourage dissenting opinions as it were or are.  Not truly dissent but adjunct and critical and parallel.
I very much appreciate McTim and you bringing this subject into the open light many would claim the ITU needs more of such ultraviolet light.

--- On Fri, 3/19/10, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought
To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 3:21 AM

Eric - 
In groups like the ITU, everyone that happens in the meeting is captured in 
"the Meeting Report".  The Report *is* the official output of the meeting, and 
parties often negotiate over its content on a sentence-by-sentence basis (I'm
not saying this is either good or bad practice, just pointing out how its done
for these forums).  The final Report is published as the only output of the 
meeting, and intermediate/working drafts seen in the closed meeting are 

This weeks ITU's IPv6 Forum was no different, and the document which has
been circulating is the initial Tuesday 2pm draft of the meeting report from the 
Chair.  There was nearly four hours of interventions over the content which 
followed, and so the final document is likely to be materially different in some 
areas.   My point is simply that releasing the initial Chairman's draft of the 
meeting report isn't the ITU practice, anymore than allowing open, public


p.s.  (My particular preference is for fully-open meetings, and actual minutes
         over negotiated meeting reports).

On Mar 18, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

I am not reading this right.  Do you mean that "it is for this reason more reports and drafts should be made public" ?
Or are you saying we should not know about such things because the vast majority of the public is too stupid.?
Or are you saying this made people have to explain themselves and that is bad?
Or that no one on the "outside" should know what goes on on the "inside"?
(hopefully explaining this is not tooo much trouble)
--- On Thu, 3/18/10, John Curran 

So, a reading of it gives a sense of the meeting, it's important not
to rely on it regarding an specific text.  For example, the charter
of correspondence study group two was a topic of discussion for
more than an hour, and will a barely recognizable derivative of 
what's presently shown.  It's for this reason that draft documents
like these are generally not published outside of the study group

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100319/9d964c15/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list