[governance] IGC nomcom process and results

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi,

I still understand that the nomcom have felt reluctant on forwarding  
nominations when nominees were not informed on such possibility in  
advance, and I now see that Ian (one of the nomcom's members) has  
confirmed this.
However, after having rechecked the rules for nomcom process details  
(http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html), I've a language  
question: what does mean exactly in English the following sentence:

"6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will  
their applications and other information"

- candidates will make public their applications and other info if  
they are willing to to so, or
- nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as their  
applications and other information?

This is a serious question, in good faith. I'm used to make my points  
clearly (and if needed bluntly:)), so I never need to use sneaky  
detours and in any case I don't like this..

Thank you very much in advance for the English course (actually, I  
learn a lot on this list from this point of view)
Best,
Meryem

Le 23 avr. 08 à 15:44, Meryem Marzouki a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> I don't see any need, nor any sound reason, to criticize the nomcom  
> - i.e. its members - in this process.
>
> It has been set up in a hurry, with countless messages from  
> Parminder desperately asking for volunteers. It was even difficult  
> to find a non voting nomcom chair. And my opinion is that the  
> nomcom did a great job, especially under such conditions, to come  
> up with a call for nominees perfectly synthetizing the  
> requirements, following the long and - as usual - heated discussion  
> we had on this list prior to nomcom work.
>
> True the nomcom might have made clear that (self-)nominations  
> should also be sent to the IGC. But, after all, no one from this  
> list reacted on the call for nominees, saying that nominations  
> should be sent to the list. In such conditions, I understand that,  
> most probably, the nomcom felt reluctant on forwarding nominations  
> (with names and private details), when nomineeds were not informed  
> on such possibility in advance.
>
> Since we don't have yet the nomcom report, I also hardly understand  
> critics on why people from one region or the other have not been  
> selected, or in less number than others, when we don't know the  
> details on the received nominations (only general statistics have  
> been published).
>
> As regards nominees, we certainly can't expect from people external  
> to IGC to send their (self-)nominations to this list, when they  
> haven't been asked so. However, we could have expected to be  
> informed on (self-)nominations from people active in the IGC, most  
> notably from incumbents, most notably from those incumbents who  
> announced their willingness to be selected again. Apparently, they  
> don't have anything to report to us on their activity in the MAG  
> till now. I regret this.
>
> Furthermore, the nomcom has selected 15 nominees. It has been said  
> that this would give more choice to the selection by UN/ 
> Secretariat. I'm wondering:
>
> (1) if it's wise to give choice to UN/Secretariat - why then  
> undertaking this selection process?
> (2) how many candidates from IGC nominated group we expect to be  
> selected?
> (3) how many CS people we expect to be selected, all in all.
>
> You might have understood at this point that our criticisms should  
> target now is not the nomcom, but:
> - our own choice of selecting our candidates through a nomcom  
> process rather than a voting process
> - our own choice - be it by default - to let the UN/Secretariat  
> pick up who it wants to pick up, rather than having a clear idea in  
> advance on how many candidates we should select, then  select them,  
> and send this list to UN/Secretariat with clear demand that they  
> should be on the MAG.
>
> We should be now busy with workshop proposals, statement for May  
> consultations, and other related issues. But right after this, we  
> should start considering at least changing our charter w.r.t. to  
> selection process, and vote on this changes according to our  
> current charter provisions.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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