[governance] IGC nomcom process and results

Fri Apr 25 06:07:40 EDT 2008

We definitely need to better organize ourselves:)
To start with, we need to have ONE (just one, not three or who knows  
how many) caucus website which URL should be indicated in the list  
signature.
It should contain charter and other information, archives of  
processes (e.g. Avri has now added archives of former MAG candidates  
selection), and archives of all statements and documents (including  
workshop held, reports, etc.) from the caucus. Seems that almost all  
this is already at http://www.igcaucus.org/
I suggest the caucus coordinators regularly check this as part of its  
job, with help of the good souls who volunteer (currently, it's Avri  
only, I think).
Best,
Meryem
PS. I'm still waiting for the English course, even Australian English  
would be welcome:), to understand the precise meaning of the sentence  
("6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will  
their applications and other information").

Le 25 avr. 08 à 11:51, Ian Peter a écrit :

> A quick response -
>
> I didn't even know that website existed or any such rules
>
> I am sure that most (if not all) candidates didn’t either as they  
> were not
> referred to at all during the process this year
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: 25 April 2008 18:57
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
>>
>> 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
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date:
>> 24/04/2008 07:24
>>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date:  
> 24/04/2008
> 07:24
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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