<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The membership issue of this
group certainly needs to be sorted out.<br>
<br>
I have said this before, but I can see only one real way out. To have a
clear membership which is renewed bi-yearly. It doesnt matter if there
are only 30-40 such members. They need to feel a collective (sorry for
using that word, Milton :) ) responsibility for the caucus. At present
it is too much of 'some one else will do it' and coordinators are left
with an impossible job. <br>
<br>
Organizational issues should be dealt by this members list, with free
and regular references to the larger group, which consists of those who
are interested in the caucus, in the matters of getting information,
contributing, and deliberating, but not willing to take much
responsibility, which is of course very fine. For most purposes one
will never feel the difference while participating in the regular
larger group.... it will only be more or less an exceptional thing to
take matters to the members group <br>
<br>
Otherwise we will keep ending up in some absurd situations of the kind
Milton refers to.<br>
<br>
I appeal to coordinators to take this issue up. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<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></o:SmartTagType>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; 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 color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; 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 color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div
style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><font
face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
<hr tabindex="-1" align="center" size="2" width="100%"></span></font></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; font-weight: bold;">From:</span></font></b><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma;"> Magaly Pazello
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:femlists@gmail.com">mailto:femlists@gmail.com</a>] <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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a></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 face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><font
face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">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 face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">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 face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Danny Younger</st1:PersonName> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com">dannyyounger@yahoo.com</a>><br>
>Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM<br>
>To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>,
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Ian Peter</st1:PersonName> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">>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 face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">>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 face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">><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 face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>