[bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

[parminder]

On Wednesday 20 November 2013 12:45 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:25 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> As said before, I do not agree to steering committee choosing MAG 
>> nominees, or other kinds of reps, or next steering committee's 
>> membership, and so on.... These are serious. important issues which 
>> should have a clear, transparent, accountable and thus legitimate 
>> process around it. And I dont see that in place.
>
> We have not chosen the MAG nominees, we have simply collected the 
> nominations, suggested criteria that could be used to evaluate them, 
> and forwarded them back to the main list with a recommendation.

No one on the 'main list' is going to say, no,  this person selected by 
steering committee is not right, and such.... we all know that. 
Therefore the process is of de facto selection by steering 
committee..Reference to the main list becomes just a fig leaf. BTW, if 
it is indeed only a recommendation to the main list, what is the process 
of actual selection by the main list - since if steering committee only 
makes recs, then the actual selection is made by the main list.... And 
you say below that there are no members of Bestbits (BB) ! All this is 
highly contradictory, which can set the scene for some people to do as 
they wish. Not that I am accusing that is already the situation.

As to the point that steering committee having just forwarded all names 
(bec this time there were only that many names).... a precedent of 
nominee/ rep selection by steering committee is being set up, and it 
will be used then to institutionalise the process... This method of 
building the BB coalitions structures is not acceptable to me.... Such 
important processes have to accepted not by default - by no- one -said- 
anything-to-the-contrary logic - but by express consent of an 
overwhelming majority of members. That is a 'best practice' for civil 
society coalitions the world over, and BB cannot use the expedient of 
just calling itself a 'platform' and not a coalition, and thus  avoiding 
legitimate processes.... While at the same time it seeks to take up so 
many 'powers' for itself, which prima facie are very unlike 'platform' 
nature of any structure.... These are glaring contradictions that must 
be resolved, collectively by all BB members.... If separate working 
group lists can be made to address substantive issues why cant such a 
group also be set up to finalise processes and structures for BB...


> Although your objection was noted, most others were comfortable with 
> this process

I am not sure. I want to expressly hear them.... Silences cannot be 
taken as assent for such serious matters, including deciding the role 
and powers of steering committee - which include rep selections. To me, 
sorry to say, it sounds as a self serving process or rather a non-process.

> and since we do not have voting or membership as such, we decided to 
> go ahead.

So, we really have no membership! There are no BB members! There is just 
a steering committee of BB, right. That is BB. Nothing else. Is this the 
status... We at ITfC need to know bec we were one of the founding members.

No, this form and structure of BB is not adequately discussed and 
settled.... Some people just proposed it, basically existing steering 
committee members, and nothing happened after that.... This situation 
cannot be taken as having settled the matter in the way steering 
committee has decided it will be...

Lastly, why cant these names just be sent to IGC nomcom process? IT is a 
much more clearly institutionalised as well as well set out process, 
with transparency and accountability.

And unlike what was claimed earlier, by you I think, IGC nomcom has 
always been mandated to collect and forward names from a broader civil 
society space and *not* just IGC, and it has done so in the past... In 
fact I nominated one name to the process who I am not sure is on the IGc 
list.

Parminder


>  If appropriate your objection could probably be noted in some way in 
> the letter that goes to the MAG.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/d066138a/attachment.htm>