[governance] Update on voting for charter

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

A couple of comments to two different emails

On 29 sep 2006, at 04.12, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the problem we are facing with reaching the quorum I think reflects  
> the double function of this list. As I have suggested before, many  
> subscribers of this list are here not because they regard  
> themselves as members of the caucus but because they want to follow  
> and at times contribute to our debates on Internet Governance.

I think that is part of the reason for a quorum and the size of the  
quorum in the voting.  The governance list has 294 subscribers.  Of  
these, I was able to attach individual names to 174 list members.  So  
requiring 50 to identify themselves as members of the caucus only  
constitutes 30% of identifiable subscribers, and 15% of all  
subscribers.  As hard as it is to reach 50, i think this is a minimum  
reasonable threshold for any legitimacy claims we may make for the IGC.

Incidentally, since 1 apr 2006 - more then 50 people have contributed  
email to this list.


> However, having looked at the voters list yesterday I must say that  
> there still are quite a few who I would definitely categorize as  
> caucus members and who havn't got around to vote.

And so far only 41 have voted.
9 more to go folks.

btw, getting more then 50 would be good too - but i am an optimist.


On 29 sep 2006, at 05.56, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> In an age where electronic voting is being promoted as an enabling
> democractic option for national elections, and when I have just  
> completed a
> national census online with a very simple interface,
>
> THIS HAS BEEN AN UNBELIEVABLY COMPLEX PROCESS!

Yes, using plain text email is rather complex.  And I am afraid that  
the detail I have gone to in trying to explaining it has made it seem  
a lot more complex then it really is.  But I am not one to judge;  
compared to installing the software on an old linux box it seems  
rather straightforward to me.

Also, I would prefer to offer a simple web interface and there is a  
volunteer working on this now.  Hopefully we will have it before any  
more votes are inflicted on the list.  If the IGC persists and if it  
continues to use voting as a means of decision, then i believe that,  
in time, we will have an easy-to-use tool that is attuned to the  
needs of this group.  And i am hoping that i can make use of this  
FOSS tool available to other CS groups who may want a free (as in no  
cost) place to vote on stuff.

I do want to point out that this voting tool is a fascinating tool  
that offers a lot of power to the individual voter. For example, its  
ability to allow any voter subscribed on the list to create a poll on  
any topic of interest is quite novel and something i would love to  
see used in the future.  That is, votes do not only originate from  
coordinators, any member can initiate a poll. If someone is curious  
about what people think about something, they can poll on the  
subject. It also has an interesting petition capability i have not  
taken any account of yet.


>
> Software is a mile above the functionality we have been asked to  
> deal with.
>
>

I also agree that a simpler interface would have been piossible if we  
had the fund to pay for a commercial voting service.  Thought,  
because this is open softare and becasue I believe it is a tool that  
in time can be used in interesting and hopefully valuable tool in  
further developing our notions of on-line democracy.

I would also argue that given the full set of functionality that this  
tool offers, it probably offers more functionality then most voting  
software systems, it just offers less user friendliness.

Personally i am grateful every time a substantive topic takes root on  
the list.  and i do wish we were doing more in relation to the IGF.

> WE HAVE BEEN OBSESSED WITH PROCESS

>
> The process we have been through has only been exceeded in Internet  
> history
> by the excesses of the ICANN Whois debates and the odd esoteric  
> IETF debate.
> Less than a month out from IGF this list has been dominated with  
> process
> rather than substance.

Hmmm, second only to ICANN and IETF?  Since I am involved in both,  
perhaps it is a reflection of a bug i caught.  On the other hand, i  
see both of these as examples of groups that have worked toward a  
participatory model and have succeeded to various degrees in coming  
up with methods that can be tried and used.  I don't think either  
ICANN or IETF is anywhere close to perfect and can probably be quoted  
by several people on this list as having railed against both of them  
at various times.  I do, however, beleive that how one achieves  
participatory democracy, especially when working with an affinity  
based non-membership organization, is still a subject for  
experimentation. I also believe that given the nature of group  
dynamics and competing world views in such a group often involves  
processes that appear somewhat gothic.  But yes, an autocratic  
structure would be simpler,  and perhaps there is a simpler form of  
participatory democracy that would work for IGC, but i don't know  
what it is, and those who participated in creating the proposed  
charter did not arrive at something simpler.

Also, I admit that my concerns has been mostly process, but then  
again that is all my mandate from the group covers.  The whole point  
behind a charter etc is to give the IGC an organizational basis from  
which it can do the more interesting and valuable stuff.  I also  
admit that i find our attempt to create a system that can work for  
participatory democracy in a group such as this an interesting   
challenge.

>
> That being said, my last shout is
>
> PLEASE VOTE NOW
>
>

yeah, what he said.

a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance