Hi folks, On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
That would create a very bad incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid reaching consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that they are looking for anyway. What kind of multi-stakeholderism is that?
I think those that support a position (after all the evidence/data is collected, analyzed, etc.) have to also *justify* that position with good reasons. "Show your work", to throw back a statement Greg has made occasionally. This prevents the bad incentives that you speak about, where people simply "gum up the process" by holding to a position that is untenable and diverges from the facts/evidence and analysis. If folks have watched the film "12 Angry Men" (I watched it again a few days ago -- only 96 mins in length), you'll see what I mean, here's one quote that might sound familiar: Juror #7: I don't know about the rest of 'em but I'm gettin' a little tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it's gettin' us nowhere. So I guess *I'll* have to break it up; I change my vote to "not guilty." Juror #3: You *what?* Juror #7: You heard me, I've... had enough. Juror #3: Whaddaya mean, you've had enough? That's no answer! Juror #7: Hey, listen, you just uh... take care of yourself, 'uh? You know? Juror #11: He's right. That's not an answer. What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted "guilty" with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket? And now you've changed your vote because you say you're sick of all the talking here? Juror #7: Now listen, buddy - ! Juror #11: Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life? Don't you care... Juror #7: Now wait a minute! You can't talk like that to me - ! Juror #11: I *can* talk like that to you! If you want to vote "not guilty", then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty, not because you've "had enough". And if you think he is guilty, then vote that way! Or don't you have the guts to do what you think is right? Juror #7: Now listen... Juror #11: Guilty or not guilty? Juror #7: I told ya! Not guilty! Juror #11: Why? Juror #7: ...Look, I don't have tuh... Juror #11: You *do* have to! *Say* it! *Why?* Juror #7: Uhh... I don't, uh... think he's guilty! [Juror #11 stares back with impatient resignation, and finally returns to his seat] Otherwise, some 'votes' for an untenable position are really just a sham, and would be weighted accordingly when viewed by those outside the PDP, including at the GNSO council level "above" us. One thing the IGO PDP (which I'm also a member of) has done very well, in my opinion, is provide *extensive* footnotes all throughout its final report to explain/support all the analysis, to defend its conclusions against attack (we're about 95% finished our work in that PDP). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/