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

Norbert Bollow nb at bollow.ch
Wed May 29 06:24:54 EDT 2013 

I was talking about the rough consensus process defined in the Charter.

In a rough consensus decision, the view of an “overwhelming majority”
prevails over the minority / dissenting view.

This is balanced by the rule that first a serious attempt at trying to
reach a compromise must have been made: “Rough consensus can only be
called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority
points of view.”

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Wed, 29 May 2013 05:08:33 +0530
schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:

> 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