[governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE)

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Tue May 28 19:38:33 EDT 2013 

And equally by minority points having made the same effort. Compromise can't all be on one side as I am sure you realize.  

But then the minority characterization of the majority position hre uses words like illegitimate so I doubt they acre anywhere close to such a compromise position / middle ground,

--srs (iPad)

On 29-May-2013, at 1:31, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> If there is significant interest in knowing whether something is a
> majority or minority viewpoint in IGC, I suppose it would be possible
> to answer that kind of question by means of a poll. There might
> sometimes be a surprise in that it is possible for a view to have only
> a small number of vocal proponents but a large number of people who
> generally agree but don't post much. 
> 
> Keeping in mind of course that a majority viewpoint, determined by any
> means, is not a position of the IGC -- IGC positions are determined by
> only by consensus or rough consensus, and the rough consensus process
> is explicitly based on first having made a serious attempt to
> accommodate dissenting or minority viewpoints. 
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> Am Wed, 29 May 2013 00:02:03 +0530
> schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:
> 
>> Possibly, except that those I consider a minority viewpoint are just
>> as, if not more, vocal on this list at least than I am.
>> 
>> I am counting heads here, not the number of times a particular
>> opinion is voiced.  Unscientific of course but well ..
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> On 28-May-2013, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm very curious to see your evidence for your repeated assertions
>>> concerning majority and minority opinions on this list (or in CS as
>>> a whole… Could it be that what you are considering a "majority" may
>>> simply be louder and more persistent/insistent voices… M 
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh
>>> Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 PM To:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NET
>>> NEUTRALITY AND MORE 
>>> Riaz, there is a minority that appears against a consensus that is
>>> emphatically not confined to the USA, Europe or even to the OECD
>>> economies.  Fine - but it is a minority, and cannot do adequate
>>> justice to a claim that the majority's consensus is not legitimate
>>> because it doesn't share that consensus. Ask anybody at all that
>>> has a dual technical and policy background (and hence, someone who
>>> would be rather careful and specific in not coining new phraseology
>>> like "single rooter") from anywhere in the world and you would get
>>> this consensus viewpoint.  I can think of people in Nepal, Kenya
>>> and lots of other countries that would meet your definition of
>>> "single rooter".
>>> 
>>> Back to a coordinator's role - it is one where the coordinator's
>>> personal political preferences should take a back seat in favor of
>>> scrupulous neutrality between two opposing points of view. At least
>>> that is my personal opinion and I am not sure if the charter says
>>> something to the contrary when others read it.
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>> On 28-May-2013, at 22:14, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2013/05/28 02:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> I think that the more of the stakeholder get involved in ICANN
>>> processes instead of judging it from outside, the better chance we
>>> will have of actually achieving  multistakeholder control over
>>> ICANN's narrow bit of turf.
>>> 
>>> Non-participation is also a democratic "choice" - and the point is
>>> political. Inclusiveness has a peculiar Eurocentric ideal that it
>>> is always good. By this absence US hegemonic control over CIR is
>>> not legitimised... too small to even be noticed perhaps, but as
>>> Gadhiji said to the effect, anyone who thinks being small is
>>> ineffective has not been in bed with a mosquito.
>>> 
>>> Which brings us to the case of Norbert's interventions. None of the
>>> complaints meet the standards of what was acceptable in the single
>>> rooter phase (where irrationality ruled), and personally I find the
>>> tenor much better - particularly when it comes to ensuring a)
>>> diversity of views, b) a more open culture of (dare I say it)
>>> tolerance. 
>>> 
>>> And without being ad hominem, and with greatest respect, and to be
>>> sure so that there is no doubt, from my idiosyncratic perspective,
>>> those who are complaining loudest are those who have variously
>>> sought actively to marginalise certain Third Worldist views from
>>> simply being expressed. A combination I dare say that is too
>>> coincidental to be improbable - and happy to be dissuaded from this
>>> view. As the African proverb goes, you can't comb my hair when I am
>>> not around, which I suppose is the intention of agenda curtailment.
>>> It would not be so bad if it were more refined and empathic than
>>> its typical formulations. 
>>> 
>>> I would welcome some codification of the role of coordinator. You
>>> see it from the current perspective. I see it from the perspective
>>> of being on the receiving end of Hegemonic civil society
>>> representatives (hereafter HegCS) particularly single rooters,
>>> history and context would be required to understand what is
>>> happening. The articulation of single rooter doctrine that chose
>>> one particular version and in effect declined or marginalised
>>> technically feasible multiroot option as unfeasible is something
>>> that should never happen again.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps I am being too candid, but this is not a defence of the
>>> co-cos at all, but merely a defence of the rules of engagement,
>>> because if the laws are flattened to get at the devil and the devil
>>> turns on you, all the laws being flattened... we are simply
>>> concerned with the rules of the road, as are you.
>>> 
>>> As such, in the light of single rooter precedents, inclusiveness
>>> (in a countermajoritarian way) I am all for standards applicable to
>>> coordinators, and would welcome some codification, as Norbert's
>>> actions can then be put in the appropriate context
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

More information about the Governance mailing list