<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I am not sure what issues
exactly bother Deirdre and Tracy so much, but let me try to respond to
what I read.<br>
<br>
I dont see what could be the problem in Jeremy transparently putting
forth the outcome of the process, without formally declaring the result
which, as per the the charter, should be called jointly. He clearly
says that "I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger.
The result will be subject to appeal". </font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Two people objected to the process as not being proper, and so Jeremy
in a rather proactive manner went beyond what has been the normal
practice and described the precise outcomes of the process of calling
consensus, which has always been done on a 'yes' 'no' vote. How can now
we be accusing him of further violations is beyond me...<br>
<br>
As for the issue of 'voting' and membership in developing IGC
positions, there is some degree of lack of clarity in the charter, and
precedents are followed, as established over the last many years. <br>
<br>
Whether we count members or also include non-members, the result of
the vote would not have change. it is also important to see that
Bill, who called had earlier called the process into question, though
on a different issue, did ask Jeremy specifically about the status of
the voters, after the voting had started.<br>
<br>
</font>
<pre wrap="">>And, I presume, to ascertain that they are IGC members in good standing, not just list subscribers, per standard practice? (Bill)</pre>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <br>
Since as per his later email, in being more proactive than normal in
discussing the voting outcomes threadbare, </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Jeremy </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">was </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> laboring under the questions
raised by Bill/ McTim on process issues, he as per Bill's question,
also clarified the status of the voters, and also took a count
disregarding non-members.<br>
<br>
i do agree that this issue of whether only member's votes are counted
or every list subscriber's has been vague, and attempts to clarify this
issue has been not successful earlier. This may be a good time though.
I do think that anyone who has been on the list for 3 months should be
able to apply to the co-coordinators to be included in the members'
list after fulfilling due requirements. I also think that voter of only
full members, who have clearly affirmed desire to be part of this
collective process (independent of the current issue under
consideration) , should count. Otherwise, to give an example, many IGC
list subscribers, having interest in some institution etc (pl, it is
only an example :) ), while not otherwise committed to IGC's collective
opinion forming process, and thus not having applied for membership,
may just vote enblock when some statement involving that institution
is being framed, which would obviously be very unfair. <br>
<br>
But I do agree this issue of whose vote counts in a rough consensus
forming process is a bit open right now. But this doesnt not at all
mean that we keep discouraging a new coordinator in his first
consensus call by open ended comments on 'things could be done
better'.<br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:808a83f61001310519k74dcbe1eq2f0737a3a818823a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree 100% with the issues raised by Deidre. The message by Jeremy
does raise several concerns and although the discussion on the topic
seems to have died a natural death without being actioned, it appears
that a more structured IGC moving forward could assist with ensuring
that the approach currently employed for consenus building is
enhanced.
On 1/31/10, Deirdre Williams <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:williams.deirdre@gmail.com"><williams.deirdre@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This message raises several concerns for me which I hope can be
discussed/clarified on the list.
On 31 January 2010 03:59, Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"><jeremy@ciroap.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I feel that this could have been more happily phrased, indeed more
happily done. In a situation which deliberately has TWO
co-coordinators surely the process should be to discuss first and then
jointly publish even a preliminary result.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> However, as indication of participation, my count says that after
removing
duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES +
thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working
groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention.
Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote,
were
from non-members and have to be disregarded.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">PLEASE clarify the issue of "membership". This was not an election, it
was an open vote to try to establish consensus. I have pasted in what
seem to me to be the two relevant parts of the IGC charter below.
"Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months
before the election will be given a voter account.
As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that
they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described
elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information
(i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to
vote).'
While the language of this rubric seems to suggest that it is limited
to elections, it is the only guidance the Charter offers for a "Voting
Process" which in fact is the heading for the paragraph. So is this to
govern the general "voting process" on issues, or only election
voting?
See the paragraph below. Is it the case that "an overwhelming majority
of the IGC" DOES NOT include those people who have joined the group
since the most recent election? In this case this would exclude those
who became interested and joined the list during or after the most
recent IGF meeting.
Decisions
The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible.
When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be
jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the
purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming
majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any
dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger. The result
will be subject to appeal.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">For statements defined as coming from two people the first person
plural "we" or an impersonal third person plural "The co-coordinators"
(although clumsy) would be preferable.
But then I'm an English teacher, and fussy :-)
Best wishes
Deirdre
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
rights around the world.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50">http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a>
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>