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

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Wed May 29 07:31:55 EDT 2013 

We do have open dialog here and transparent processes.

However there appear to be clear lines drawn on some issues where ideological or other reasons make consensus difficult.

Which doesn't quite contradict what you point out, of course.

--srs (iPad)

On 29-May-2013, at 16:48, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Suresh,
> 
> of course the bedouin in that story [1] was a fool.
> [1] http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html
> 
> Of course I am not suggesting that in a consensus or rough consensus
> process, holders of a majority viewpoint should agree to something
> that they are in actual reality opposed to. Seeking to accommodate the
> minority point of view just means to try to find a wording that is
> acceptable from both perspectives. A rough consensus call is possible
> only after that has been tried unsuccessfully.
> 
> On some (perhaps most) issues we will not reach consensus and not reach
> rough consensus either. That's ok. IGC is supposed to “provide a forum
> for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
> society contributions in Internet governance processes”. (That's from
> the mission statement in the IGC Charter.) The concept of a “forum”
> implies accommodating and supporting a plurality of civil society
> agendas.  
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> Yes Norbert, it is a concept I am familiar with.
>> 
>> But there's such a thing as the minority point of view making much
>> the same 'serious effort' to achieve consensus, if we are not to end
>> up with the tale of the camel (or minority point of view) and the
>> bedouin (or majority point of view) in his (consensual) tent on a
>> cold night.
>> 
>> The bedouin did make a serious and well intentioned attempt to
>> accomodate the minority point of view, if you remember the tale - and
>> it ended with him being left out in the cold.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> On 29-May-2013, at 15:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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