[governance] coordinator elections

Wed Apr 23 00:21:07 EDT 2008

I have been requesting the caucus to sort out some organizational issues,
and I think this particular issue must be sorted out 'now', to give me the
right directions to proceed further on the matter of co-coordinator
elections.

The issue is about a membership list of IG Caucus, for the voting process. 

> if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.

Avri, There should be no doubt that in driving the election process I have
no intention other than to go by the charter, as it exists, and my personal
opinion on this does not count. In fact, I had spoken of sending out these
emails confirming subscription to the charter a few times, the latest many
days ago with a 4 days comments period (only Jeremy replied, and said he was
fine with the process). However I still did not send the emails out because
I suspected that some members may have different ideas on this (proven right
from your email) and therefore came back, once again, to the list yesterday.

I also took as an endorsement of my reading of the charter when on my
proposal to send out an email to IGF attendee inviting them to join IGC
Milton commented (only comment received)  that I should add a line that
subscribing to the charter allows one to vote. The full text of the email,
with the added line, was then again put on IGC before it was sent out. 

 So the only thing relevant here, at this moment of time, is the reading of
the intention of the charter. 

As I said I have asked for caucus's opinion on this several times. 

There are two part of the charter
(http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html )relevant to this
issue. One is the part on 'membership', and the second on 'voting process'.

The two read as follows.

Membership

The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who
subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the
same rights and duties.

(after a couple of other sections follows the part on voting process)

Voting Process

Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the
election will be given a voter account.

As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they
are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in
this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must
affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to
self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the
criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published
after the election with the results of the election.

Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the appeals
process.

(end)

In my reading there is probably (though only probably) a small incongruity
between the two which is at the root of the issue under discussion.

The membership part is clear that members are those who ' subscribe to the
charter of the caucus'. Clearly, those who do NOT subscribe are not members.
Does anyone have any doubt over this reading?

I read the membership section of the charter as being at a higher level then
the voting section, if a possible issue of apparent incongruity has to be
resolved. (pl also comment on this construction.)

However, the incongruity may not be real.

The 'voting process' part says, all those subscribed to the list on a
particular day - 2 months before the election - will be given a voter
account. (if it meant membership of IGC wonder why the membership part
didn't say that as well, it would have been easy and direct.) I take the
major intent of this line to be contained in the part ' subscribed to the
list at least two (2) months before the election', to avoid the possibility
of last minute registrations, and to allow the members some time to know the
issues etc a bit.

Then it says that "voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of
the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this
charter....." That elsewhere has just one criterion mentioned - subscription
to the charter'. Therefore I don't see any problem in directly ascertaining
if one subscribes to the charter, and therefore accepts membership, rather
than asking 'do you think you are a member as per the criterion mentioned
elsewhere in the charter'. 

That's essentially the difference between the process I have proposed and
what, Avri, you propose. I don't see why you are making so much out of it,
and hyping it with language like you don't want to be swearing an oath. 

'The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision
based on the criteria defined.' This may be the part which makes you think
that by the very act of voting one is a member, and adherence to the charter
is assumed. The meaning and intent of this line here is not very clear, but
I take its meaning more in the context of civil society identity of a
member, which is not a stated criterion of membership but a strongly implied
one (see the mention of 'CS' thrice in the mission statement). We know that
this can be controversial identity to judge and therefore the charter leaves
it to every person's self-identification, for the purpose of voting here. 

In any case if there were at all any real or perceived misalignment between
the membership part and the 'voting process' part I will take that the
'membership' part will hold greater authoritativeness. 

In any case, while I can see that a class of members can be non voters, I
cant see some voters being non-members. That looks quite illogical.
Therefore clearly all voters must have endorsed the charter. I am merely
asking them, have they considered this issue, and done so. I know many IGC
list participants may not want to subscribe to the charter identifying us an
a advocacy group committed to such and such, and I am merely giving them a
right to do so, and know that in that case, as per the group's charter, they
shouldn't vote.

And this issue, in case of the IGC list, as we all know is a very real one.
There are many on this list who are here to look up for information, or even
to participate in a debate, but not as  a part of an advocacy group,
committed to collective action along certain lines, as constituted by the
charter. So, the numbers on the list is much larger than those who would
self-identify as charter endorsing members. We know that only  a small part
voted during the charter part (60 or so) and among them we still do not know
which were the ones  (all voters minus 3) who affirmed the charter. 

And we ourselves often identify this dual nature of IGC - as a discussion
forum, and as an advocacy group, and have developed some level of comfort
with this dual identity. 

I think not having a list of full members of the caucus who have endorsed
the charter is a very real issue, and we do not have this list at present. A
few members have publicly asked me for this list, most recently Adam, and I
have not replied, or replied in some embarrassment describing the current
situation. 

So, I request member's views on this issue of (1) how to prepare the voters
list for co-coordinator elections, and what process to follow (read the
enclosed email for the process proposed by me) and (2) whether we need or
don't need a list of members of IGF as defined by the charter. 

At this point, since we are in the middle of a process, we are only seeking
these views 'as per the members' reading of the charter' which we need to
follow for IGC's organizational processes. Other more general views may be
offered, but with clear separation from the view 'as per reading of the
charter'. Thanks.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:50 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:35, Parminder wrote:
> 
> > If anyone has any comments, pl give provide them now. Thanks.
> 
> >>
> >> "This is to prepare a voting list for the election of co-
> >> coordinator of
> >> IGC.
> >> The charter of the IGC at
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html lays down
> >> that the
> >> membership of IG consists of those who have endorsed the IGC
> >> charter. If
> >> you
> >> endorse the IGC charter pleas cut paste the following lines and
> >> reply to
> >> this email.
> >>
> >> "I have read the IGC charter at .... and endorse it". With your
> >> full name
> >> appended to this.
> >
> 
> 
> i still prefer the  endorsement of the charter indicated by the act of
> voting as described in the charter and don't plan to swear any
> separate oaths myself.
> 
> i would see doing so as an explicit expression of not really
> supporting the charter since i would be doing something contrary to
> what the charter required.
> 
> if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.
> 
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:10 +0530
Size: 40582
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/7e5d51eb/attachment.eml>