[governance] coordinating the IGC

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Thanks for your suggestion.

As I mentioned earlier, the reason I was making my suggestion was  
because I thought that the IGC was in a transition state that  
required re-organization.  I also indicated that I would only be  
willing to take the role if there was consensus on the proposal for  
ways to move ahead.

I do not believe that the status quo in the IGC is workable, and I  
don't believe that the old way of picking coordinators works.  True I  
was asking for consensus on a transition role in order to facilitate  
reorganization but I was not asking to be chosen coordinator in the  
old way of acclimation.  That is why I put forward a proposal that  
required full consensus before I wouls assume the role of coordinator.

But I accept that other participants have a different viewpoint.  As  
several have indicated already there is a preference for picking 2 co- 
coordinators and moving forward as we have in the past,  I take that  
to mean that there is not consensus on the suggestion I offered and  
that there is not a strong feeling that we need to reorganize before  
we can move ahead.

I accept that and might even accept Bill as an IGC coordinator in  
your sort of proposal - assuming it finds consensus.  I am not,  
however, interested in serving in that circumstance and decline  
participation in any slate of co-cos.  I also do not think that  
having a discussion between Bill and myself is the way to resolve the  
identity and methods of the IGC.

At this point, I think it is important for the IGC to figure out  
what, if anything, we can reach consensus on.

thanks

a.


On 22 apr 2006, at 11.48, David Allen wrote:

> Let me make a suggestion here.
>
> If the caucus can declare a coordinator by acclamation (or  
> consensus or whatever set of words fit), then it can do so for co- 
> coordinators.  In fact, co-coordinators would seem most suited to  
> the circumstances.
>
> Co-coordinators are in the (brief) tradition of the caucus.  If one  
> person is to be selected in a special way, certainly two can be  
> selected.  With this as the tradition it seems we even need the  
> balance of co-coordinators, if there is to be special consensus  
> selection.
>
> But far and away most important, there is already a proposal before  
> the caucus, requesting two people to take the helm at this special  
> moment:  Avri and Bill.
>
> I am traveling and unable to search my archive.  But I know there  
> is one post already, asking Bill and Avri to step forward.  I am  
> all but certain there is more than one post.  The proposition is on  
> the table, and the suggestion here only reminds us.
>
> Then the caucus does not have immediately to adopt provisions such  
> as staggered terms or nominating committees and elections.  We see,  
> in posts just the last little bit, there are natural questions  
> raised to discuss these matters.  Instead, Avri and Bill can have a  
> productive dialog between themselves, and with the caucus, to reach  
> considered conclusions.
>
> For instance, continuity for the caucus seems to turn more on  
> cohesion in the group, than on mechanisms such as staggered terms.   
> But such structural arrangements might still be helpful (or not).   
> Two people, to whom the caucus has already turned, can see that  
> discussion through, to an effective conclusion.  If there turns out  
> to be a need to stagger remaining terms of these two consensus  
> coordinators, that can be sorted out too.
>
> Likewise the selection process to be used later can get suitable  
> consideration.  But especially, a host of other matters that shape  
> cohesion and effectiveness will have the benefit of two whom the  
> caucus has already turned to.  As discussed by others, this is a  
> special time when the caucus might outfit itself to be an effective  
> partner in the IGF and other, related governance pursuits.  The  
> caucus can, and it seems is well advised to, take advantage of the  
> leadership of two it has already identified.
>
> Then Avri especially is due very special thanks, for bootstrapping  
> such a desirable outcome.
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060422/b81681e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance