[governance] Transition

[Parminder]

Dear All

 

I think we should set a limit - say by the end on this week - Friday the 5th
- to close the arrangement for facilitating the transition. 

 

The main issue is Avri or Avri plus one (and if so whom).

 

I am fine with either. 

 

However, I will like to know what broadly is implied in this transition
period. 

 

1. The minimum it appears is to set up an agreed process - written in a
charter - which addresses issues of choosing coordinators, their work
conditions etc. And some related or otherwise relatively minor process
issues. 

 

That would be relatively easier. 

 

2. Writing down the process of developing positions on behalf of IGC will be
much more difficult. This category broadly includes nominating
representatives of IGC (like we did recently for IGF) and such
representative processes.... We can also include here issues of structural
arrangement that IGC shd be in with the CS ecology around it.  

 

3. Writing down some broad but substantive guidelines/ positions - vision,
scope, guiding principles etc - for IGC will be even more difficult. It can
get to be a somewhat difficult and heavily contested process (rightly so,
for something which is evidently very political).

 

Jeannette and some others (me included) have been insisting that we go
through this process of writing some substantive principle/policy things
into the charter as well. 

 

So, while I consider all the above as processes that will take some amount
of pains of passage, I consider them important and crucial, and appeal to
the group that we show the political will to go through these processes to
give a new leash of life to IGC. 

 

Now if this all is agreed and the responsibility of it understood - we can
come back to the question we face immediately. Avri or Avri plus one.

 

  

I am very fine if Avri thinks she can handle this well, to carry us through
the process - and in that case I support her to do it solo. However, if
there is a feeling (and I have some half-doubts here) that two persons will
be able to deflect the pressures of this difficult period better than one,
we shd go for it. 

 

Here I only want us to do some forward thinking and judge what kind of
process will the transition entail, and take our 'number of facilitators
decision' with that in mind. But lets in any case close it in the next 4
days.

 

 

Regards

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:51 AM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

 

 

On 30 apr 2006, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote:

 

> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem  

> prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your  

> proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather  

> than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the  

> proposal.

 

The proposal I made, which was contingent on consensus.

 

the basics:

 

- i become a single coordinator of the caucus with a 1 yr term

- we decide on a working charter that included a process for picking  

coordinators

   (i suggested a nomcom - but that was not well accepted, so it  

needs more discussion)

- we then picked a second coordinator for 2 year term as soon as we  

have the working charter and the process for picking

- as my 1 year term was ending, we picked a second coordinator for a  

2 year term.

 

with mentions about finding new collaborative methods for getting  

things done etc...

 

My main concerns, other then getting a charter that gets moving  

again, are for a finding a reliable and acceptable method for  

choosing coordinators given the nature of the caucus, and for that  

methodology to be a staggered method, so we are never without  

continuity of coordination.

 

so I think having 2 coordinators to start the transition means:

 

- we have a choosing at some point to replace one or both of them

- some have suggested privately that the act of being the transition  

coordinator burns the coordinators so they can't continue as  

coordinators after the transition.  i think this is possibly true.   

and was certainly expecting my one year term to be non renewable  

(though i did not explicitly include that in the description - though  

i could if we thought it was necessary). so if we have two, and the  

theory that working the transition burns the coordinator is correct,  

then we burn two instead of one.

- in that case we could follow the steps above with the variation

 

   - pick 2

   - charter with picking method

   - pick 1, burn 1 (by flipping a coin or some other selection method)

   - after a year pick 2nd, burn the 2nd transition  coordinator

 

alternatively

 

    - pick 2

    - charter with picking method

    - pick 1 for 2 year term, retain transition 2 for the rest of year

      (gives total of 3 for the balance of the year)

    - at the year mark pick a new one and burn the 2 transition  

coordinators.

 

or ...

 

a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

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/20060501/b8e76b42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance