<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Palatino;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It would be very good if, in this discussion, the various parties would make some effort to clearly differentiate their contribution from those that have gone before… >>>There are various ways of doing this as you know…<<< <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>(I believe that many people, including myself, read their mail in some type of ASCII format which means that reformatting including through using italics or alternative character sets does not come through and some other procedure is required… In the absence of attention being paid to this, the result is highly confusing including especially in attributing comments to one or another party…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Tks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>William Drake<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 18, 2013 5:47 AM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; parminder<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Preliminary List of Nominees for the 2013 MAG - REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Parminder<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Hi Bill<br><br>On Thursday 17 January 2013 03:10 PM, William Drake wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Hi Parminder<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:21 AM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;orphans: 2;text-align:-webkit-auto;widows: 2;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Palatino","serif"'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Palatino","serif"'><br>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><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>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; <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><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?)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>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 <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>I will related my views on this in rather details very soon.. watch this space :) <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>We await with bated breath :-)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>and note that we on the MAG have sort of deferred to Izumi's reporting but could do something else if people wanted;<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><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><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>and c) the composition of the MAG CS contingent has been discussed in the thread and is hardly a secret.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Yes, everyone knows it. That still makes it odd for an extant member to repeated assert that extant members should not recertified. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>I don't follow the logic that makes it odd for me to note that the UN says it doesn't want this. <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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. :-) <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Games aside, I remain curious about your insistence the nomcom spend time on an extra procedure that the Secretariat has made clear is unnecessary,<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Secretariat seems to think so... but not the real decision maker - the UNDESA. right! <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>You have some interesting ideas of how all this works. You know what DESA wants and the secretariat doesn't.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>particularly when the discussion here was about the tight time frame and urgent need to complete the process.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><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><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> What purpose would it serve? <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>The biggest purposes of all - accountability.... Why are so giving it such a short shrift. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>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><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><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. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>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><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><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?<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><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. <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal> <br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> [Disclaimer: I am on the MAG, nominated by IGC and APC]<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Bill<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>