<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Batang;
panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Batang";
panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I voted against the amendment, but do not
have a problem with the procedure used. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The real problem is that a high bar was
set regarding the membership portion who have to vote. If a loose organization such
as this attracts 200 people who call themselves “members” at point
A and after two years 35% of them lose interest and stop participating, then no
charter amendments would ever be possible. If the vote were a close one it
would be different, of course. As it is, all that happened was that the vote
extension allowed the will of an overwhelming majority to be executed.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Magaly Pazello
[mailto:femlists@gmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, September 27, 2009
10:00 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">governance@lists.cpsr.org</st1:PersonName>;
Jeffrey A. Williams<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] Results
of charter amendment vote</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dear list,<br>
after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been
following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite my
silence.<br>
<br>
I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding to
the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time and
dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look forward as
the IGF is coming and there is much to do.<br>
<br>
I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have
aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this period.
But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in favor of the
charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this
disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the new
text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also because we don't
know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made within the regular
voting period or during the extension period.<br>
<br>
I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the voting
process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Magaly Pazello<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams <<a
href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Danny and all,<br>
<br>
There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not<br>
necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have<br>
occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that<br>
suspicion.<br>
<br>
So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't<br>
ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Danny Younger</st1:PersonName> <<a
href="mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com">dannyyounger@yahoo.com</a>><br>
>Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM<br>
>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>,
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Ian Peter</st1:PersonName> <<a
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><br>
>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote<br>
><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>Ian,<br>
><br>
>Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am
considering the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural
irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate
decision.<br>
><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed
the amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to
pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the
pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to
put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the
particular outcome that they themselves preferred.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>><br>
>Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such
actions constitute an improper gaming of the process.<br>
><br>
>Best regards,<br>
><st1:PersonName w:st="on">Danny Younger</st1:PersonName><br>
><br>
>[...]<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>