<div>Dear All,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hold no view on the matter but have been reading the debate with much interest. My comments are strictly on the interpretations of the term:-</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff33">"Immediately prior to the elections"</font></strong> and whether this is an objective or subjective test. If your membership is the world of internet governance gurus, disciples, followers, specialists, reporters, states, multinationals, civil society etc</div>
<div>and they are from all over the world which means different timezones, are they mobile (flight etc) and what if they are in a non-penetrated zone</div>
<div>where there is no ICT access for a period of time. What is "reasonableness" for a multistakeholdership body?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What were the original drafters' intention in ensuring "time is of the essence"? In examining these questions it may shed some light on the rational of both sides of the debate and how we can come to a consensus.</div>
<div>More interestingly, who is the consumer in this aspect and what are the principles of fairness and transparency? Are they being applied?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why are rules made? (this is a rhetorical question - made to stimulate our thought processes)<br><br>Believe it or not, this debate is a reflection of the conflict between the evolution of forms of government based on philosphers such as Hobbes, Montesqiueue, Locke who agreed that there should be checks and balances but differed in their opinions on the forms of government.</div>
<div>Benedict Anson who talked of imaginary boundaries. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Eventually, the issues could evolve into what philosophy do we as a multistakeholder group subscribe to? This is interesting because we come from all forms of diverse cultural backgrounds, diverse forms of government and are of course subjected to different laws?</div>
<div>What is the objective of the organisation? Who is a member? Whose views are represented?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>These questions and many more will help us start thinking of:-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1)philosophical platform which should be tied to the vision;</div>
<div>2)the form of government will be a natural consequence once (1) is addressed;</div>
<div>3)there will be room for clear dialogue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Strength of leadership is when there is foresight, ability to link and connect the dots, ability to cater for everyone (does'nt mean they all have to agree but they can agree to disagree), ability to consider the weak amongst us.</div>
<div>If this organisation is going to be the template of multistakeholdership for a myriad other issues and organisations in the world, then how it carries itself, inclusive of its formative processes is also critical. Reaching outcomes is important and process is important too. But the question is, what kind of process and why did we choose this type of process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again, I would like to say that I am not taking any sides just merely exploring the impact of "immediately after the elections" phrase.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Warm Regards from Sunny Fiji,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sala</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">On 9/29/10, Mawaki Chango <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be formally<br>> considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After<br>
> all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People on<br>> the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of particular<br>> importance for the group, require as condition for participation that one's<br>
> involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the previous<br>> vote. Is that really too much?<br><br></div>The idea being debated is not an interpretation that voting in ANY<br>single prior election qualifies for Charter voting, but the<br>
IMMEDIATELY prior election.<br><br>Recall that there have been elections in which, before the election is<br>over, people have to be urged to vote in order to have a quorum.<br>Regardless of the type of election, it shows that with everyone's busy<br>
schedules, turnout can be a problem. Thus, after every election there<br>is a rotating but relatively large number of people disqualified for<br>the next election if it is a Charter vote, and those people are not by<br>any means just newcomers to the list. It could be anybody. It has<br>
included me.<br><font color="#888888"><br>--<br></font>
<div class="im">Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box 1<br>Ishpeming, MI 49849<br><a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>906-204-2334<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro<br>P.O.Box 17862<br>Suva<br>Fiji Islands<br><br>Cell: +679 9982851<br>Alternate Email: <a href="mailto:s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj">s.tamanikaiwaimaro@tfl.com.fj</a><br>
<br>"Wisdom is far better than riches."<br>