<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=iso-8859-1"><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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.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=MsoPlainText>I know that these issues are important and I'm pleased that some people are paying considerable attention to them but they are not something in which I have a lot of interest or wish to give much attention...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>That being said in a context where there are specific thresholds for vote numbers with potential sanctions/costs (in time/attention) if these are not achieved; the responsible behaviour is for me to vote even if I haven't given a lot of attention and don't really understand the issues or their significance.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>As an alternative, could I suggest that we consider what is coming to be called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy">delegative/liquid democracy</a>" in these instances. Thus someone like myself, concerned that the IGC operates effectively and within an appropriate "constitutional" framework, but who doesn't have the time or interest to follow these matters directly would "delegate" someone whose broad position on these matters I agree with (let's say Norbert) to represent/vote for me in these areas. He would retain my vote until I withdrew it or until a designated period of time had elapsed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>In this way, I believe we could ensure that snafus of failure to achieve specific threshholds such as we are currently experiencing (and as I recall to have been recurrent during the life of the IGC) would be avoided while overall deliberative democracy would have been retained.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>M<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:05 AM<br>To: IGC<br>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hi,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:44, Norbert Bollow wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> It would be very reasonable IMO to propose a charter amendment which <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> replaces the 2/3 quorum with a 2/3 qualified majority of those <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> answering the question for any particular charter amendment proposal, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> AND at the same time also removes the special category of "members for <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> purposes of amending the charter" (i.e. charter amendment polls would <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> be just like other votes in that each person who has been subscribed <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> to the list for at least two months is given a voter account, and <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> people affirm themselves to be caucus members as part of the process <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> of participating in the poll.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I would argue against such a proposal as I beleive it would give us control by those who cared about an issue. In all cases we know that those who care about an issue are more likely to vote. On things like charters, it it the continuity of the group that counts, and thus I am quite happy with the fact that changing the charter is a challenge. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>It might also allow for a lot of people to join the group and spend their first two months working on a change to the charter. Though the contradiction of affirming support of the charter on a vote to change the charter is appealing in a weird sort of way.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I see no problem with the current rule. I find fault with myself for not having paid attention to how long the vote would be or for having neglected to be a pest and asking the coordinator's how the vote was going and for not reminding people to vote from time to time. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>We have succeeded in amending the charter before, we know it is possible. So this time, i see it as a lesson, not a reason to change the charter.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>avri<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>