<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
You are wrong on many counts.<br>
<br>
<I don't follow the logic that makes it odd for me to note that
the UN says it doesn't want this. > (Bill)<br>
<br>
One, UN DESA has clearly asked for existing members to be
renominated. I dont know why you keep insisting they havent. It is
in the UNDESA call for nomination from which I had quoted earlier,
and I cant keep re-quoting it.<br>
<br>
<But that means a collective decision, not you unilaterally
pronouncing at the 11th hour. ><br>
<br>
Second, it has been a tradition to re-certify extant members and so
there is no "unilaterally pronouncing at the 11th hour" of anything
as you allege. Quoting from the email by Chair of the last nomcom
that nominated MAG nominees (email by Jacqueline Morris of Jan 10,
2012...
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm">"Current MAG members are
encouraged to
re-apply, but in the interests of diversity, we would like to
limit
to those who have already served 2 consecutive terms."<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm">and<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
--></style>"Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly
mention how they carried out their responsibilities in the last
term(s), in advocating and pushing IGC’s positions as well as
the larger CS positions. We would also like to hear what they
have contributed, what they intend to contribute and why they
want to continue in the role. Their level and manner of
engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may
also be mentioned. "<br>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<..... rather throw it out there a couple days before the nomcom
is supposed to deliver? Or for that matter, years ago, like when
you were on the MAG?> (Bill)<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm">
Thirdly, I was never on the MAG, and never nominated by IGC, and
so there was no question of renomination. I was a Special Advisor
to the MAG Chair picked directly by the chair and in position at
his pleasure. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm">Perhaps you can get your basic facts
right before making your arguments rather than accusing the other
to be too hard an interrogator...<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm">parminder <br>
</p>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 18 January 2013 07:16 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:EABE0D40-4A5E-407A-B033-5F534618FA39@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hi Parminder
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Hi Bill<br>
<br>
On Thursday 17 January 2013 03:10 PM, William Drake wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hi Parminder<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:21 AM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:
Palatino; font-size: medium; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">In either
scenario, I would think Adam's solution is a
sensible way to get this done promptly and focus
the noncom's effort on what really needs doing.<br>
</blockquote>
<br style="font-family: Palatino; font-size: medium;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
-webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
<span style="font-family: Palatino; font-size:
medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
-webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline
!important; float: none; ">I do however find it
rather odd that an existing IGC nominated MAG
member should insist that either the matter of
recertifying not be taken up at all, or that
noncom simple issues a blanket endorsement without
at all going into the merit of the case, that too
without appending any disclaimer :).</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>And I find it rather odd that you would make this
claim when a) in the very next sentence of my message
I refer to discussions we are having in the MAG; </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I did not understand. What do any discussions in the MAG
have to do with my request that all existing members also
be considered for renomination? (By the way, what
discussions are you having in the MAG?)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Sorry, you had two accusations in one sentence and I was
responding to the second, that it was somehow suspect that I
didn't append a disclaimer saying that I'm on the MAG. So I
noted this was clear from the rest of the message etc.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>b) in another message sent to you and the list
seven minutes later I ask you what you thought was
controversial about our informal MAG meeting in Baku </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I will related my views on this in rather details very
soon.. watch this space :) <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
We await with bated breath :-)</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>and note that we on the MAG have sort of deferred
to Izumi's reporting but could do something else if
people wanted;</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is very fine.. I have no problem with it. Generally I
do seek better and closer interactions. Many have said the
same thing about out MAG reps over the years on the IGC
list...<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> and c) the composition of the MAG CS contingent
has been discussed in the thread and is hardly a
secret.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, everyone knows it. That still makes it odd for an
extant member to repeated assert that extant members
should not recertified. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I don't follow the logic that makes it odd for me to note that
the UN says it doesn't want this. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> I also find it ironic given the high standards
of disclosure demonstrated when you were telling the
IGC to support the Indian government's CIRP proposal
without mentioning your role in it, and so on. :-) </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Games aside, I remain curious about your insistence
the nomcom spend time on an extra procedure that
the Secretariat has made clear is unnecessary,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Secretariat seems to think so... but not the real decision
maker - the UNDESA. right! <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
You have some interesting ideas of how all this works. You
know what DESA wants and the secretariat doesn't.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> particularly when the discussion here was about
the tight time frame and urgent need to complete the
process.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It should take a few minutes only. I expect everyone to be
renominated, maybe with a short discussion about some
being more interactive than others, but maybe the nomcom
will also observe that they expect/ request continued or
greater interaction with IGC... That is all. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> What purpose would it serve? </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The biggest purposes of all - accountability.... Why are
so giving it such a short shrift. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
So you've decided that unless each extant MAG member is
re-examined and recertified there's no accountability? Then
why didn't you propose this long ago so the caucus could have
a rational discussion of the idea and come to some consensus,
rather throw it out there a couple days before the nomcom is
supposed to deliver? Or for that matter, years ago, like when
you were on the MAG? <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> I don't really care much either way and would of
course roll with whatever IGC members have consensus
on, but it seems like silly bureaucracy to me.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
For a nominating group to reassess an earlier nominated
candidate is 'silly bureaucracy' for you ! That surprises
me. I really dont where are you coming from. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I was trying to help Thomas and the nomcom do their thing by
asking the Secretariat what they wanted. I relayed what I was
told, and now here I am being grilled by police interrogator
Parminder (I admit, you must have been good!). I can handle a
round or two of this if we can dispense with insinuations
about missing disclaimers etc. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Would it look rather less silly if at some time an IGC
nomcom conspicuously refused to renominate an extant MAG
member, while renominating all others, because it were a
widely held belief that, since the earleir nomination, the
concerned member had clearly conducted him/her-self in a
manner that maked him/her not worthy of an IGC nomination.
Is such a situation in your view entirely inconceivable?</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
There are countries that have right-to-recall provisions.
India has them now in some local bodies. And you are
against a re-assessment even when there is clearly a fresh
appointment involved. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Ok so now I understand. I thought we were trying to help the
caucus solve the subject line---Preliminary List of Nominees
for the 2013 MAG - REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION---and so
pointed out we don't need to invent new steps nobody is asking
us to take. But your purpose is not the short-term, getting
it done, but rather the long term, establishing rules for the
IGC, including the option to recall MAG members based on some
sort of interrogation of their performance. So the search for
something in the universe to regulate continues. Fair enough,
I trust you regard this as fair minded institution building
and will ignore the personalized accusatory way you started.
So if caucus members think this is important, want to discuss
the pros and cons, and come to a consensus on a course of
action—whether formalized in the charter nomcom bits or more
informally—great, I'm sure all MAG members will happily
comply. But that means a collective decision, not you
unilaterally pronouncing at the 11th hour. </div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> [Disclaimer: I am on the MAG, nominated by IGC
and APC]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>