[governance] coordinator elections

[Parminder]

Avri

>>reply to members queries whether
> > we have
> > a list of subscribed members.

> we have the list of people who voted in the first election on the web
> site and they are 'members' by virtue of having agreed to following
> statement on the ballot (as dictated by the charter).

That number (46) is a little less than the number who subscribed to the
charter (53) not counting technical disqualification for votes) by voting
FOR it just 6 weeks earlier. Is that then the case that 7 of them lost their
'membership' by the act of non-voting. (And it is quite likely that there
would have been more among the '56' who subscribed who did not vote in the
co-coordinator election, because a few who did not subscribe could have
voted in the elections.) People choose to vote or not vote depending on the
issue, without meaning to disengage from membership of a group. If voting
'determines' membership, you are in effect calling for compulsory voting at
all times, which is a bit extreme. 

The issue here in front of the caucus is to determine if membership will
determine voting list, or voting list should determine membership. My views
on this are clear. Charter, rightly, puts the 'membership' section way
higher than the 'voting process' section and the relationship should be
obvious.

To repeat, membership section, rightly coming immediately after description
of vision, mission and objectives of the caucus, clearly says, "The members
of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to
the charter of the caucus".

Membership is a more enduring quality, voting behavior is more transient. In
fact, as noted above, I think quite likely that some people who may not have
voted in the charter poll voted in the coordinator elections. You are given
a voting ballot to choose, you think Parminder is likely to be an awful
coordinator, you 'want' to say 'no' to him, as a right to expressing your
views, because you are after all on the IGC list and affected by
coordinator's behavior, and vote 'no'. Others may not care to say anything
either way, without meaning to disengage from the group. 

That brings us to the issue of 'IGC list participant' and (versus ?) 'IGC
member' (of the advocacy group constituted by the charter) as per the
charter. First of all, I must re-assert that I am not straying into the area
of what I THINK it should be, about which many members here are eager to
jump to conclude, but only about what I read in charter. 

I think it a matter of known fact that many of those subscribing to the IGC
list take it only as place to look up information, and/ or occasionally to
express some views. They do not care - which they have a right to do - to be
associated with any advocacy positions and activity, or any declaration of
advocacy principles and a set of proposed collective activities(as the
charter does). I did not create this distinction, it is known and existing,
and the charter, in my opinion, acknowledges and formalizes it. 

Otherwise there was no reason why under membership we just did not simply
write - "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal
capacity, who are subscribed to the IGC mailing list." Instead of, as at
present. (see above).

So, Avri, when the ballot you used asked for self-identification as a 'civil
society participant of the Internet Governance Caucus' it does not make
anything clear at all about endorsing the charter, and anyone can take it as
meaning being a CS person subscribed to the list. The reader is likely to
take more cognizance of the 'civil society' aspect of this phrase, and this
is how I also read the significance of this phrase. If one were sure one was
CS and of course one will on the IGC list if one receives this communication
one will (perhaps) not hesitate before one clicks the vote button, without
reading the charter much less affirm that one endorses it, even if only in
ones mind and to oneself. 

> > But I don't understand how does by voting one
> > gets
> > treated as having subscribed to the charter. 
> 
> becasue the ballot asks them not to vote if they don't.  seems
> relatively simple and open.

No, the ballot you posted does NOT ask them not to vote if they don't -
subscribe to the charter. That's the whole point. 

Also please tell me what's your real problem with preparing a full list of
the 'membership' as per the charter which we do not have at present and use
it for voting purpose.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:48 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:12, Parminder wrote:
> >
> >
> > No intention to make things complicated but I understand your
> > dilemma. But I
> > have to conduct elections and also reply to members queries whether
> > we have
> > a list of subscribed members.
> 
> we have the list of people who voted in the first election on the web
> site and they are 'members' by virtue of having agreed to following
> statement on the ballot (as dictated by the charter).
> 
> >>
> >> ==== ====
> >> POLL TEXT
> >> ==== ====
> >>
> >> By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
> >> particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.
> >>
> >> If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.
> 
> New subscribers have not had a chance to declare membership because
> there has not been another vote.  but that does not mean they are not
> members, once they are on the list for 2 months, if they think they
> are members, and support the charter, then they are members.
> 
> The idea in the charter is that all who are subscribed at a moment 2
> months before the vote are potential members and they declare their
> current membership by voting, as long as the vote includes a statement
> like that above.
> 
> >
> >
> >> Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to the
> >> charter and then given the voting right?
> >
> > All 'new' members were already asked, and I have a separate list of
> > those
> > who have subscribed.
> 
> >
> 
> is that a chartered activity that is within the coordinator's purview?
> 
> >
> >> Or do you request all members
> >> do so again even they did before?
> >
> > Nobody has done any process of 'subscribing' to the charter. There
> > was a
> > vote on the charter which went 56 - 3, with a quorum of 67
> > (including votes
> > rendered invalid for technical reasons). We DONT have a list of
> > those who
> > voted 'for' the charter.
> 
> true.  but we do have the list of those who voted in the election
> where you were elected.  which is a snapshot f membership at that
> moment in time.
> 
> >
> >
> > Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
> >> subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting
> >> right,
> >> but
> >> by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the
> >> charter?
> >> (To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).
> 
> 
> yes, as long as the vote contains a statement like that above.
> 
> >>
> >
> > That what Avri says.  But I don't understand how does by voting one
> > gets
> > treated as having subscribed to the charter. And what of those who
> > do not
> > vote because they just do not care to make a choice on co-
> > coordinator issue.
> > They become/ remain non-members?
> 
> becasue the ballot asks them not to vote if they don't.  seems
> relatively simple and open.
> 
> >
> >
> > This way we still wont have a members list
> 
> you will have the list of those who voted.  i.e. active members who
> not only say they believe, but who actually participate in the vote.
> again, just a snapshot, but over time, snapshots, plus lists of people
> who participate in the day to day activity gives a good clue.
> 
> >
> >
> > Whats wrong with sending an email to all asking if they have read and
> > subscribe to the charter they cut paste a single line in reply. And
> > on that
> > basis prepare a members list, which is then the voting list (with 2
> > month on
> > the list criteria added).
> 
> it is an extra step we did not agree to in the charter.  beyond that,
> i think it changes the nature of the caucus.  and it is fine for the
> caucus to change its nature if it so wishes, but it should do so by
> changing the charter.
> 
> >
> >
> > Is what you are suggesting that we add a line on the ballot - if you
> > vote,
> > it will be taken that you have read the charter and subscribe to
> > it.. A lot
> > round about manner of ascertaining the primary criterion of
> > membership per
> > the charter but that fine, if everyone wants that. And I cant
> > understand
> > what advantage does it have vis a vis a more direct process I
> > suggested.
> 
> it is what we did before.
> 
> >
> >
> > And if we go by it still not have a full membership list. And
> > remember even
> > last time less people voted in the co-coordinator election than in the
> > charter process. People often make that choice. And members have
> > asked for
> > that list, which I don't think is an unfair request.
> 
> 
> what is a full membership list.  those who beleive but do not vote and
> may have even left the list?  and if i get a real job (not likely)
> with industry tomorrow and am, therefore, no longer qualified for
> membership, am i required to send in my resignation?  or do i just
> search my conscience and not vote next time?
> 
> >
> >
> > Lastly, I am asking this purely from a practical point of view. I
> > need to
> > conduct the elections as per the charter. I will go with whatever
> > veers
> > towards a consensus position here.
> 
> so why choose a two step solution when a 1 step solution will work and
> has precedence?
> 
> >>>>
> >>>> If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,
> >>>> especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very
> >>>> little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in
> >> this
> >>>> case.
> >>>>
> >>>> a.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a
> >>> simple
> >> and
> >>> relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are
> >>> trying to
> >> sort
> >>> out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it.
> >>>
> >>> Parminder
> 
> i am not taking an extreme stand.  i am taking a personal stand.  as i
> said i do not really believe that voting is a reasonable method for
> representation - perhaps i am jaded on the topic.  i do believe that
> voting is sometime useful to take a snapshot when there isn't time for
> real consensus or there is a need for secrecy (which is sometimes a
> necessary evil in my opinion).  i do believe in voting with your
> feet.  in fact i believe that it is sometimes the only way a person
> has to be sure her views are heard.
> 
> in the case of the IGC i believe it should remain an open caucus where
> we declare our membership by our participation and we do this in a
> manner defined by our charter.  if we are no longer that organization,
> then i have no reason to vote in this organization even though i will
> continue to participate in the list.
> 
> 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