[governance] coordinator elections

[Parminder]

McTim and Izumi

Before I go into engaging with the issues I request you to be fair in this
discussion and not keep telling me 'we should follow the charter'. 

I have said a few times not that I ONLY intend to follow the charter for the
practical purposes of (implied in the duties of the co-coordinator) making
a voting list (as per the charter, I have to repeat) and a list of IGC
members as defined by its membership criteria (again squarely as per the
charter).

Not only have I clearly said 'my opinion here doesn't count', but also that
members getting into this discussion give their views 'as per their
interpretation of the charter' (I went to the extent of saying that views on
what may generally be right may be given separately.)

So it is a bit unnecessary to keep on telling me this simple line ' lets
follow the charter'. It will be a whole lot more to the point to say I don't
think this is the right interpretation of the charter, and this one may be.
But for that one has to read the charter and some emails that have been
exchanged on its interpretation. I know it is lot simpler to just keep
telling me 'lets follow the charter' but that doesn't really serve any
purpose here. 

Also I must add that in response to my email (enclosed) explaining in full
detail my interpretation of the charter Avri responded ' But you are right,
it could be seen as a matter of interpretation'.

So can we please follow the 'interpretation of the charter' level of
conversation, rather than hurry to tell me - you are not following the
charter, and also by implication that I am intent on changing the character
of the caucus.

In fact the main reason for delay in elections has been that I knew these
issues will come up regarding the voting list, and I kept on trying to open
discussion on these larger matters (again, within the interpretation of the
charter) in the IGC to which no one responded.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] coordinator elections
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:51:07 +0530
Size: 68704
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080424/d7afeba1/attachment.eml>