<html>
<body>
At 19:23 13/06/2010, Eric Dierker wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This notion that we are no
longer looking for enablement and empowerment through common vote and
democratically inclined notions is very practical. It does take
away the everpresent problem of mandates and agendas. But.....<br><br>
It handles in a very engineering way the diminution of people. It assumes
that all are capable of leading as well as the next. If chairing is only
a +_- equation without personality requirements then why have one, just
design a program. If it makes no difference who - then who cares?
</blockquote><br>
I am afraid you are missing the fact that this is among MAG reps.
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Do we want that guy advocating
our position on how technology can help stem AIDS and advance Womens'
issues in the Sudan??? Or pounding his shoe on the table regarding
censorship and denial of A2K??</blockquote><br>
I do not mind at all. Because I am not legitimate judging who would
actually do better. What counts is not who is "better", but if
we have a position. That anyone from our community consensually agrees
with. A Chair does not advocate and does not pursue a personal
agenda. He represents a consensus. Thay guy will be far more credible and
legitimage that one brillant specialist pushing what everyone knows to be
his pet idea.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I think the notion of a Chair
deserves some respect. I think "by lot" diminishes that respect
and the MAG as a whole. But admittedly my concept requires the
wasted time of human frailty.</blockquote><br>
A Chair must be surrounded with decorum, listen, report to his
constituency, get a consensus and present them assisted by advisors.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">--- On <b>Fri, 6/11/10, jefsey
<i><jefsey@jefsey.com></i></b> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>From: jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com><br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG
Chair?<br>
<dd>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm"
<jeremy@ciroap.org>, governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<dd>Date: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:38 PM<br><br>
<dd>At 13:39 11/06/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>There have been a few really good comments coming through on
questions 1 and 2 (thank you!), but please keep them flowing.
Question 3 is closely related:<br><br>
<dd>How best to nominate the MAG Chair?</b><br><br>
<dd>Here are a few examples of options we might recommend:<br><br>
<dd>1. A single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General
(as at present).<br><br>
<dd>2. The UNSG appoints one Chair, and a co-chair is appointed by the
host country (as was tried for the Brazil IGF meeting).<br><br>
<dd>3. The MAG appoints its own chair (by a vote or by
consensus).<br><br>
<dd>4. The MAG appoints two co-chairs for alternating two-year terms
(much like we do in the IGC).<br><br>
<dd>In the case of options 3 and 4, we might also require that the
chair/s, if not independent (ie. UN-based), would be from a different
stakeholder group at each rotation.<br><br>
<dd>Are any of the above to be preferred, or can any be swiftly
rejected? Are there any other options you can think
of?</blockquote><br>
<dd>If you are serious about the question of nominating someone to
represent three billions of people make a monthly rotational chairmanship
attributed by drawing lots. This way he will not represent the people
themselves (how do you want to do that?), but the position will
structurally exemplify their diversity and the individual autonomy of the
constituant.<br><br>
<dd>Democracy is over. We are now entered in Polycracy where
representation is not by selection or election (vote of one priviligied
person, or by every person), but exemplification. The less previsible one
for the less previsible time is the best way to be sure that no personal
agenda will be supported, and that the consensuses being reached by this
Chairmanship will be external as well as internal, i.e. stronger and
better. Also, you cannot bribe the dices.<br><br>
<dd>JFC<br><br>
<dd>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br><br>
<dd>____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd>
<a href="/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.htm">
governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<dd>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<dd>
<a href="/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.htm">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>
<dd>For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>
<dd>Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>