<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
The IGC charter gives IGC many clear organizational responsibilities,
that require both some amount of discipline and collective decision
making capacity, which we all realize often does not exist at present. <br>
<br>
It is our responsibility to ensure that we evolve in the direction
whereby we can best fulfill our mandate. Unfortunately, we often seem
to be going in the opposite direction, and I am very concerned about
it, like many others who have repeatedly expressed similar concerns. <br>
<br>
We already have a membership group and a non-member list subscribers
group. We can make use of this distinction wherever needed to ensure we
are able to </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">properly
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">do things that we are
mandated to do.<br>
<br>
I understand that the IGC mandate can be seen to have two aspects<br>
<br>
(1) to be an open space for exchange of information and discussion on
IG issues, chiefly global IG issues<br>
<br>
(2) to undertake public interest advocacy in global IG spaces<br>
<br>
The two aspects of IGC's mandate have different organizational
requirements. (1) above requires it to be an open space, least
encumbered by any rules, exclusions etc except the very basic ones
which are required to be enforced in any public place to allow a
reasonable discussion. The aspect (2) of the mandate however clearly
requires more specific organizational and outcome-achieving capacities.
No one is advocating IGC becoming a typical formal organization, and we
indeed have achieved very considerable advocacy outcomes in the past.
In this sense IGC indeed is a very unique organization or group. And we
need to keep evolving on the same unique path. <br>
<br>
I think it may be in order to have a members only e-list, something
like <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:IGC-mmbers@lists.cpsr.org">IGC-mmbers@lists.cpsr.org</a>, plus another general IGC discussion
list which can continue to be the same list as the present one. All
discussions should take place on the general IGC list. Attempts at
developing consensus should also first be attempted on the general list
- in any case the overall discussion towards seeking consensus
should take place on the general list. <br>
<br>
However, as and if required, issues requiring specific decisions should
move to the members list. Here, if needed, simple voting can be used to
decide issues. Issues that may need decisions include anything that can
be causing serious disruptive effect on the IGC (and you know what I
are taking about here). <br>
<br>
In fact if a decision is put to the members list - whether it is a
substantive one, like when consensus on an advocacy issue is becoming
difficult, or that related to IGC maintenance and discipline - IGC
members are expected to feel more responsible to so something about it.
In the present situation where IGC space often looks so alien and
unowned by anyone, it becomes easy for members to abdicate
responsibility.<br>
<br>
What I propose and seek here has significant resonance with the acute
'political' crisis we face globally as well locally across the world
today - societies and communities are losing means and, consequently,
motivation for collective decision making in areas where such decisions
are crucial to our survival. In IGC too we face such an existential
moment. And unlike the global crisis it is much easier for us involved
in this group to do our bit and make a change. We may also be, in the
process, taking a small step towards addressing the stated global
crisis. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:5AD9A3BE-3C9E-4777-A731-025F451E602F@psg.com"
type="cite">Hi,
<br>
<br>
It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list.
Especially given the number of well respected people who are
participants on the list and not 'members'.
<br>
<br>
I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency
(not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to
time) and because it would end a very important kind of outreach this
list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to
join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner if wished).
<br>
<br>
If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller
side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a
statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others,
but with open archives.
<br>
<br>
a.
<br>
<br>
On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Is it possible for us to propose and
implement a trial procedure to later be voted upon and approved by the
list?
<br>
<br>
Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related
topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance
list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members
would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up.
<br>
<br>
Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it
is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of
the duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or
consensus.
<br>
<br>
After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the
charter.
<br>
<br>
Is this practical, appropriate, legal?
<br>
<br>
Any thoughts?
<br>
<br>
I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should
take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is
a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do
it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be
able to make it stick :o)
<br>
<br>
gp
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>