<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi,<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I have put my comments in-line.</DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On 22 jul 2006, at 08.20, Parminder wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> <O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"> <O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"> <DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">Thanks Avri, for driving the process long and hard, but hopefully now towards a closure.<BR></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>yes, i very much hope that is the case. I will submit the names for voting on Monday and start to build the voting directory. once that is done we can schedule the vote.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"> <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">Can I share a few comments on the latest changes.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">>the most significant<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> change was to the mission where i replaced<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> It is intended<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> with<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> The membership of the caucus intends<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> I understand this is a slightly different meeting as it attributes<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">> the intention to the membership as opposed to some abstract entity.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">Can we just say ' the caucus intends....' because the mention of membership in this line appears to stand out discordantly. <BR></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>in my understanding of the notion of intentionality, only people can have intentions. if an abstract entity like a caucus has an intention it is only because its membership has one.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">It appears to highlight the importance of enrolling as members, kind of a exclusive ‘ only for members’ stance. Whereas we plan to keep the forum wider, more open, and though developing networks and other connections offer some possibilities for non-members to participate in some ways – through membership of individuals representing groups, HR caucus for example, or through other outreach measures that we pledge to undertake in other parts of the charter….</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>the charter includes a paragraph on membership:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="7"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 32px;"><B>Membership</B></SPAN></FONT></P><P style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;">The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties.</SPAN></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>as this shows, the IGC is composed of individuals who subscribe to the charter. so to say that 'the membership' of the IGC is not exclusionary in the least.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>It does, however, distinguish between those on the list because they want to track what we are talking about, especially when it is contentful, and those who actually see themselves as members.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I see no content difference between the two constructions, except that one is more conceptually reasonable, i.e. the people who are the IGC have the intention not the abstract entity called IGC.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">Another thing about the part where the option of secret versus open voting is stated.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">At all times when a case for open voting was made on this list, it was insisted that there can and will be situations where secret voting may be needed. So can we make the option to read<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">All voting will be open, though on discretion of moderators, with or without request from member(s), it can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal.<BR></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I can certainly substitute this for the current open voting option. i.e.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;">Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the appeals process.</SPAN></FONT></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 247, 94); "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;">Option 1: All voting will be by secret ballot with the exception noted above for release of voters names.</SPAN></FONT></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 247, 94); "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;">Option 2: <SPAN style=""><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Courier New" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13.3333px;">All voting will be open, though on discretion of moderators, with or without request from member(s), it can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"> <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">As for making the vote on this charter itself a secret vote, I know that a decision has to be taken one way or the other by the moderator, and I do not want to raise dissent here and will agree to go with the decision. However, this particular vote exemplifies my position on open voting very well. I cannot find one reason why the vote should be secret in this case, and the ‘competing’ imperative of transparency of process and ‘public-ness’ of opinion and representation (if any) remains strong in this case.<BR></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>for me there are two reasons:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- it has been the assumption of this process for a while now that the vote will be closed. the charter proposal that came out of the drafting team contained:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="7"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 32px;"><B>Acceptance of the Charter</B></SPAN></FONT></P><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;">After 30 days discussion and editing, the charter will be presented for a vote. All members of the IGC mail list will be given voter accounts. In order to qualify to vote on the charter, the prospective voter will first need to affirm that they qualify as a member of the group as described elsewhere in the charter. A list of those who self-affirm membership, but not their votes, will be published after the vote.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></P><DIV>Obviously this is not a option that can be voted on after the charter vote, so it needs to be decided beforehand. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Since yours is the only argument against this acceptance clause since we began the discussion, I would prefer to leave this in place. If the rest of the membership desires open votes (option 2) thereafter they can decide that way.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Since this has stood until now in the charter, I would very much appreciate letting the acceptance process go through as written.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"> <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">Third thing…<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoPlainText"><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt">The phrase (realization of) ‘cultural concerns’ in the vision looks a bit odd, can we think of a replacement that serves the purpose better… that if any one has some bright idea, I couldn’t hit upon one.<BR></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I kind of like cultural concerns because it keeps us from having to include a long list of all the possible cultural concerns we care about. And of course, since no such list is ever complete, we would leave a few out as we would not be able to agree on some and we might have no one currently in the IGC who would argue for some. While we could include 'inter alia' to make up for the fact that we did not include someone's cultural concern, i think that is a poor consolation. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>thanks for your comments</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>a.</DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>