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

Wed May 29 08:32:40 EDT 2013

PapppppppNe
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details.

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:01:58 
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
Subject: [governance] On majority and minority viewpoints (was Re: NET
 NEUTRALITY AND MORE)

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

-------------- 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