<div dir="ltr">Thanks Thomas for bringing this up and clear confirmation.<div><br></div><div>So our Appeals Team 2012 actually has terms for 1 year, till next July.<div style><br></div><div style>Sorry for overlooking that!!</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>izumi</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/1/8 Thomas Lowenhaupt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com" target="_blank">toml@communisphere.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
IGC List,<br>
<br>
My records indicate the current members of the Civil Society
Internet Governance Caucus Appeals Team are:<br>
<ul>
<li><b>Ginger Paque</b></li>
<li><b>Ian Peter</b></li>
<li><b>Roland Perry</b></li>
<li><b>Shaila Rao Mistry</b></li>
<li><b>Deirdre Williams</b></li>
</ul>
They were appointed by the NomCom on July 24, 2012. The appointment
was for one year beginning on July 24, 2012. (See copy of the NomCom
report below.)<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Thomas Lowenhaupt, Chair (non-voting)<br>
2012 Appeals Team Nominating Committee<br>
<br>
P.S. The <br>
<br>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject: </th>
<td>The Nominating Committee's Appeals Team Selection Report</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:31:00 -0400</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Thomas Lowenhaupt <a href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com" target="_blank"><toml@communisphere.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>governance list IG Caucus <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>Asif Kabani <a href="mailto:kabani.asif@gmail.com" target="_blank"><kabani.asif@gmail.com></a>, Hakikur
Rahman <a href="mailto:email@hakik.org" target="_blank"><email@hakik.org></a>,
Naveed haq <a href="mailto:naveedpta@hotmail.com" target="_blank"><naveedpta@hotmail.com></a>, Shahid
Akbar <a href="mailto:shahid.akbar@biid.org.bd" target="_blank"><shahid.akbar@biid.org.bd></a>,
Wilson Abigaba <a href="mailto:abigabaw@gmail.com" target="_blank"><abigabaw@gmail.com></a>, Jeremy
Malcolm <a href="mailto:Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au" target="_blank"><Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
Fellow Member of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus,<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> <br>
The Appeals Team Nominating Committee is delighted to announce
that the selection process for the Appeals Team has been
successfully completed with the following 5 nominees receiving a
majority vote from the NomCom members:<br>
<ul>
<li><b>Ginger Paque</b></li>
<li><b>Ian Peter</b></li>
<li><b>Roland Perry</b></li>
<li><b>Shaila Rao Mistry</b></li>
<li><b>Deirdre Williams</b></li>
</ul>
The NomCom effort began in May and included several outreach
emails to the IGC list detailing the need and process for
selecting an Appeals Team. As a result of this outreach effort
the NomCom received 11 nominees. The Committee them confirmed
with the nominees their willingness to serve. All responded
positively. The 11 nominees confirming their willingness to
serve were:<br>
<ul>
<li>Ginger Paque </li>
<li>Gurumurthy Kasinathan</li>
<li>Ian Peter</li>
<li>Imran Ahmed Shah</li>
<li>Judy Okite</li>
<li>Michael Gurstein</li>
<li>Raquel Gatto</li>
<li>Roland Perry</li>
<li>Shaila Rao Mistry </li>
<li>Vincent Solomon Aliama</li>
<li>Deirdre Williams</li>
</ul>
The NomCom would like to thank the nominees for stepping forward
and enabling a robust review process. <br>
<br>
We also offer our thanks to Jeremy Malcolm who, having served as
chair of a previous NomCom, stood by ready to provide any needed
support to this committee.<br>
<br>
And we especially wish the 5 selected for the Appeals Team
wisdom should their judgement be required during the term of
service. <br>
<br>
Sincerely, <br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">
The Appeals Team Nominating Committee,</span><br>
<br>
Asif Kabani <br>
Hakikur Rahman <br>
Naveed haq <br>
Shahid Akbar <br>
Wilson Abigaba <a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""></span></a><br>
<a><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Thomas
Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) <br>
</span></a> <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 1/8/2013 12:11 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>2013/1/7 Avri Doria <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank"><avri@acm.org></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>If 4 voting members appeal to the team, it is ok to appeal.
I think that having a single coordinator is no reason either way.
If members think the rules are being abused
and that the members are being ignored,
they should appeal.
I am trying to appeal
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I do understand that every member has the right to appeal.
I am not denying that at all.
But for this case, my personal opinion is that Sala's
proposal of using the existing NomCom for MAG nomination
is not a real "abuse". Given the situation, it is a practical option
as some others already endorsed.
I think we better focus on more productive and pragmatic or important issues
now. I mean, reviewing the Charter is of course important, but can't
we do so after
we settle MAG selection thing?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>I understand that you don't agree,
and it looks like very few people do,
so it may be a moot issues.
As far as I know the appeals team serves until it is replaced.
as i thought the co-co's did.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>If so, why not also NomCom? These are sort of "grey" areas that
current Charter does not specifically address.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Remind me again,
why did you step down before you had been replaced?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I have two year terms, coordinator election should be done mid-summer
or soon after according to Charter.
I did not write "stepped down" though I have made clear my intention
to step down
earlier in November, and Call for new coordinator was already made.
So, legally I might still be a coordinator until new one replaces me,
but I thought it
proper not to take any active action or role, being a lame duck and
outgoing shortly.
That's why I wrote "retired. I hope you could understand this and read
between the
lines.
izumi
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>avri
On 7 Jan 2013, at 05:41, Izumi AIZU wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear all, as already retired from co-co, I still feel a good deal of
responsibility
for some issues in this thread.
I also like to point out that the current Appeals Team's term in
theory is for 2012,
and we are already into 2013. As we know, the selection of 2012 Appeals Team
was late and only seated in late July last year.
So I am in favor of making 2012 Appeals team to be in charge for
another 6 months
should the list, and the Team members agree with.
Yet, if we agree with this flexible interpretation of the Charter for
the Appeals
Team, allowing the past NomCom to be in charge of MAG renewal nomination
would not deserve for the Appeals team to investigate if the
Coordinator's decision
is abuse and in violation of the Charter.
We are not doing the perfect job as a whole group, and I do understand
fixing these
issues are all important, but I don't think going straight to the
appeal process for abuse
when there is only one coordinator is not the best way forward.
My suggestion is, use the past NomCom for this MAG selection, start discuss the
Charter amendment right after the new coordinator is seated.
best,
izumi
2013/1/7 parminder <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Monday 07 January 2013 11:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On 6 Jan 2013, at 22:24, Adam Peake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi Avri,
Could you explain why an abuse. You've been something of a master of
the caucus' charter, would be good to understand more before +1'ing or
not.
Thank you,
Adam
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>the Nomcom process, included by reference as part of the charter says:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be
disbanded after the decision is made.However, in special cases where several
different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened
time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the
co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several
functions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>The request for a Nomcom to fulfill several tasks is an a-prioir
requirement, not something that can be done a-posteriori as in "oh my, we
knew we needed to set up a nomcom but dod not get around to it, so lets just
make the last nomcom do it"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>
I agree. and in addition there is also the need to meet the condition of
their being a 'shortened time frame' that does not allow for multiple
nomcoms to overrule the basic requirement that " Each nomcom will be
selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is
made." With many months gone since the nomcom did its work, this condition
is also not met.
I know that contextual flexibilities are often required but, Sala, you have
not explained to me why it takes much more time to get a new nomcom out or
an existing set of volunteers, with a 2 day opt out/ out in window...
The problem with arbitrariness, or taking the view that the earlier noncom
worked well (or even worse, produced good results), is that at some time it
can abused by those who for the wrong reason may want to continue with one
or the other nomcom. Therefore, as far as possible, it is best not to build
precedents that can be mis used in the future....
Also, Sala, I did not understand what is to be proposed to be included in
the vote for new co-coordinator with regard to the nomcom. Can you please
elaborate.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>We discussed changing to the charter to make it possible to have a nomcom
per year. But we never got around to doing anything about it. To do so now
on the whim of a single coordinator is an abuse of power by the coordinator.
We knew that MAG nominations would be required at the beginning of the
year, but we did nothing about it.
We have gotten into the habit of ignoring the charter and just doing
things in an ad-hoc manner when all of a sudden we realize we are very late
getting ourselves into gear.
This habit of ignoring the charter in favor of coordinator last minute
urges is what I view as a charter abuse. Deciding to reactivate a disbanded
nomcom is an ad-hoc replacement of process. Better we miss submitting names
than that we bless this current regime of neglect by our coordinators with
further last minute ad-hoc process.
If we keep it up this way, we will be ignoring our processes as much as
ICANN has begun to ignore its processes.
And that is no way to participate in the IGF.
In any case, that is what the Appeals team is for. If 4 members of the
IGC request a review, they get one.
avri
BTW, with the irregularities in the last election I am not sure whether I
am a member or not. Hence my request for 4 co-requestoers - just in case
the powers that be decide to invalidate my request. Another issues that was
never dealt with by our co-coordinators.
avri
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>
Japan<br><a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
</div>