<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I am also deeply disappointed that, as Deirdre said in her email as the
reason for withdrawal of her nomination, the impression went around
that nominees should be able to fund their travel etc. Another IGC
members tells me offline that she knows a few more people who did not
apply becuase of the same impression. This is not acceptable on
principle. <br>
Worse, I seem to know/ think that some nominated members themselves do
not right now know where would they get their travel funding from if
they indeed were selected and funds not available to fund them.... <br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
On Saturday 25 February 2012 10:35 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F4914D7.7060609@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Dear All<br>
<br>
Most of the comments that I offer below are something I would prefer to
do on a closed members only list, but since, for reasons which remain
unclear to me, we dont have one, I will have to do so here. <br>
<br>
First of all, I agree with what Avri said in an email - the MAG
nomination process this time around has been a disaster. Let's not
mince our
words, since it is not a small issue. It involves basic questions of
IGC's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. We cant simply let it pass
by saying, ok, we learn lessons from everything in life. Civil
society's very standing and legitimacy depends on its conduct, its
processes, since we dont come to occupy the position we do with an
specific politically legitimising process - nothing other than what we
stand for and what we do. And this is legitimacy that needs to be
renewed daily, and it is lost much much faster than it can be built. <br>
<br>
The primary responsible for what happened must lie with the non voting
chair, who, it is good to be reminded, unlike other nomcom members is
not selected by lottery. S/he volunteers to take up the task. So, when
I read hints of non performance of crucial tasks by the nomcom chair, I
dont know what to make of it. And why in that case was the chair not
replaced by the coordinators. And I cannot at all understand what is
meant by statements like the following in the nomcom report.</font><font
color="#000000"><span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"><font
face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="4"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</font></font></font></span></font>
<blockquote><font color="#000000"><span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"><font
face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="4">"....the participating
members did not receive all communications pertaining to the process.</font></font></span></font>"<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
We need to know more clearly what is meant by this. What communication,
and who was responsible for it. I understand part of it was that the
nomcom did not get a very large proportion of the names to be
considered. Who is responsible for this? What really happened? What
else did not get communicated? These are basic issues of transparency
and accountability, and we need to come completely clean on it. This is
not being good and nice to each other. This is about our vision and
values for democratic governance processes. We cannot go around
preaching them to others if we cannot uphold even basic standards
ourselves. <br>
<br>
I think another important factor responsible for what happened is that
that one of the co coordinator (the more experienced one ) was himself
a candidate and thus could not involve himself to looking into and
correcting the mess that was obviously developing. Coordinators, as the
elected IGC office bearers, are the primary custodians of IGC's
processes, and election offices for nomination processes. And this role
is very necessary and can be performed without getting involved in the
actual decisions about selection of the nominees. This has been done in
earlier times. It is the coordinators who have to keep a very close
watch at the process - and make themselves pro-actively available at
all times to the nomcom for process related issues. <br>
<br>
It has been a practice for long that co-coordinators do not stand for
being nominated by an IGC noncom, and there was of course good reason
for that. I think that we should go back to that practice, and if
needed include it in the charter. I can clearly see how Izumi could not
have taken any action nor given advice when things were obviously not
going fine, and also, how, if he was in the position to do so, it is my
judgement, that much could have been averted. <br>
<br>
Just the fact that the names of a large proportion of the nominees did
not actually get considered by nomcom - becuase apparently they did
not receive them - would make the outcome of the process infructuous
or invalid, though I dont want to labor this point. ( I believe that
though the process was almost fatally flawed, it is the collective will
of the IGC, including mine, the present set of nominees should stay as
the ones that are fully supported and forwarded by IGC.)<br>
<br>
I also think that the invitation for nomcom nominees was not advertised
enough, especially close to the deadline, which is when most names pour
in. Getting 10 nominees and selecting 7 of them does not sound very
good, and is unlikely to further our cause as a group which claims to
be the premier IG CS group, globally. And to advertise well is both the
duty of the nomcom chair and the coordinators. <br>
<br>
There were other oddities about the process - a list was put out as a
provisional list of selected people, of which I dont see any reason.
And then the nomcom report mentions this fact of putting out a
provisional list as the reason that they could not do any later
amendments etc. There simply seems to a lot of adhocism going around
about what has to be a very serious and responsible process.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
</font><br>
On Saturday 25 February 2012 01:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJwbTiAZWE2EqJmyydThD_XtncyNVh6NC1FbcY95pG51uva3gQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear All,<br>
<br>
Firstly, allow me to take the time to thank the NomCom for completing
the task that was assigned to them. The work of the NomCom is not an
easy one. They faced extraordinary circumstances that made their work
challenging.<br>
<br>
Their cover letter and report is enclosed. I thank all those who took
the time to apply and congratulate the Nominees and note the
recommendation by the NomCom to support APC's list of candidates. For
those that did not make the selection, I hope that you will please try
again when it opens up again.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
Sala<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Thomas Lowenhaupt</b> <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com">toml@communisphere.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:24 AM<br>
Subject: Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report<br>
To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nomcom@lists.igcaucus.org">nomcom@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nomcom@lists.igcaucus.org">nomcom@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>