[governance] Transition

William Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
Tue May 2 09:37:15 EDT 2006


Hi,

I agree.  I'm traveling and maybe not following things closely enough, but I
didn't have the sense that there was a lack of support for Avri's proposal. 
While in princile I'd have thought it preferable to have two as before (and
again, I'm not interested in being one of them), if in practice that's a deal
breaker then fine, let's have one, which is certainly better than none.

Best,

Bill



Quoting Wolfgang Kleinw├Ąchter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:

> My understanding from the discussion is that the majority of people who have
> expressed themselves on the list openly support Avri to be the only
> coordinator for the transition period. A second one would be good, but is not
> seen as a pre-condition to move foreward. If you add the silent majority of
> the list, Avri has a rough consensus to move forward.
>
> Best regards
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
>
>
>
> Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more support
> for a single coordinator than there was for 2 co-coordinators, as far as I
> could tell. Frankly I won't support another co-coordinator proposal, if it
> means that 2 coordinators are simply plucked from the air without a process
> and without the establishment of a charter and some formalization of the
> grounds for participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that
> problem.
>
> The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a single
> person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that put a single,
> proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to accomplish a transition
> so that we can have a real process down the road. If what you are saying is
> that you will do the same thing, but add another name to the "accountable
> person" category then I might accept it.
>
> But I don't think the problem people had was with the single coordinator. I
> think there were all kinds of other little dramas being acted out, which I
> could not attempt to describe without getting myself and the caucus into hot
> water, and besides it doesn't matter.
>
> 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.
>
> --MM
>
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
> Hi,
>
> First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that
> have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I especially
> appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you.
>
> However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite
> the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in email i received
> privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the
> idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that this can't work
> without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single
> coordinator.
>
> If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more,
> but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member
> of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the
> diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2
> people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I.  I was against
> that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i
> believe i might.  But we are both from the US and while he spends
> more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to
> view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses
> (however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope
> he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint).  If the IGC wants
> two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/
> developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest)  then i
> see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve together.
>
> so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and
> appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not
> feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and
> therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to do.
>
> anyone have a idea?
>
> thanks
> a.
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
*******************************************************


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



More information about the Governance mailing list