[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list
Avri Doria
avri at psg.com
Fri Jun 27 05:14:15 EDT 2008
hi,
I am not saying you cannot hold elections just because I am making a
personal protest. I am saying that I wish to log my protest. I see
absolutely no reason why my protest should stop you from doing what
you think its right - as long you do have the consensus of the IGC.
To blame me for the lack of elections seems just a tab unfair -
especially since though i disagree with your practice, I have been
helping you in the background by providing all the information and
assistance which you have requested.
I do believe I still have the freedom of expression on this list to
make my position clear - as long as I am not breaking the mandates of
netiquette as defined in the charter. And if I am breaking them
please warn me.
I understand that not signing the charter before being put on the
voter's list as you seem to believe is required by the nature of the
organization may mean that I am no longer a voting caucus member and
only a list member. While I would consider that unfortunately, I can
live with it if it is the case.
thank you
a.
On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:29, Parminder wrote:
>
> Avri
>
> Let me first mention the real issue involved here before we go into
> arguments and counter arguments which I have no option but, because
> once
> again a spanner has been thrown in a simple organizational process
> that all
> organizations do...
>
> This simple issue here is that - I don't understand that how can a
> group of
> such global standing, importance, whatever can be held hostage to
> single
> member's 'decision' that she will not say, 'I do subscribe to the
> charter'
> come what may. I have not been able to hold elections for the last few
> months mainly because of this one issue.
>
> (I understand that you take it as some kind of an ideological
> position, but
> there isnt much I can do about this. I think it is simple to say
> that you
> agree to the charter because we know you do, but since I have to ask
> everyone, I cant make an exception in your case.)
>
> Ok, now to rationales and counter-rationales....
>
>> The list discussed this before.
>
> Yes, that's the problem. This has been discussed many many times. I
> have
> posted the email I intended to send out to make a members list a
> few times
> now over the last few months, and every time it has, in my view,
> ended with
> enough consensus that we will go ahead with this process I proposed.
> For
> instance, the last time it got discussed, Adam, among others,
> clearly asked
> me to send this email out (though I am not exactly sure what his
> posting in
> the current discussion means, in that context)................
>
> I think it is adequate, and within
>> the charter to do what we have done before -
>>
>> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot
>> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to
>> the
>> charter.
>
> Avri, you know very well that this is not what was done the last
> time. This
> only serves to confuse the members. And it cant be that you have
> forgotten
> because we have discussed what was done last time a couple of times
> now on
> this list.
>
> There was no mention at all in the ballot of the charter. The text
> on the
> ballot read -
>
> "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."
>
> I cant see any mention of the charter here, or even of 'member'. And
> we have
> agreed before that there is a difference between a 'participant' (as
> a list
> participant) and a 'member' (with voting rights). So will you please
> explain how you say the above as per your email is "what we have done
> before".
>
> Not only this is not what we have done before, in our numerous
> discussions
> you have never even ever agreed that " a voter must agree that they
> subscribe to the > charter" which you now go to the extent to say
> that this
> is what we have "done before".
>
> Your present email says what I have asked for all along and you had
> never
> agreed - that ' a voter must agree that they subscribe to the >
> charter'.
>
> So, now the only difference in what you say and what is being done
> is that
> whether (1) we ask for 'that agreement to subscribe' in a single
> step along
> with voting, or (2) first prepare a members list as per 'subscribing
> to the
> charter condition' and then issue ballots to members (on the list
> for at
> least 2 months).
>
> There is not much difference between the two 'in principle', so I
> don't know
> why you (and some others) are still arguing on what looks like
> 'principles'
> issue.
>
> It is fine for me to take the charter subscription statement in the
> same
> step as voting. However for a couple of "house-keeping issues" I have
> preferred to make a members list first and then send ballots
> along.... I
> will give my reasons for this, but can others opposing this can give
> their
> reason as well, while responding to my reasons...
>
> (1) Members list is applicable for purposes other than voting as
> well, and
> it is good to have a standing members list which we don't have at
> present...
>
>
> (2) it is a bit confusing on a ballot list to say - "a voter must
> agree that
> they subscribe" because what if the voters says nothing to this part
> and
> just goes ahead and votes. On the other hnd, is response to a
> specific email
> about subscribing to the charter and accepting membership the
> respondent
> clearly knows what she is responding to.
>
> (3) Some people do not vote in co-coordinators elections just
> because they
> do not care to make a choice in this regard. Do they lose membership
> because
> of that. Many who voted for the charter did not vote for the co-
> coordinators
> elections only a few months later. Did they therefore lose
> membership? (I
> have stated these issues umpteen times earlier). In any case nowhere
> was it
> mentioned, the last time, that voting is compulsory to retain (obtain)
> membership, right.
>
> Can the coordinator in charge of the elections be allowed to make this
> simple process choice to do a two step process especially now when
> there is
> no 'principles' issues left since you agree that one should first
> agree that
> she subscribes to the charter before voting... also especially since
> the
> coordinator has taken this matter to the list at least 4 times now
> and is
> convinced that there has been enough consensus to follow this
> process. But,
> still, you may counter the above imperatives for following the two
> step
> process that we have laid out. Also pl specifically mention what is
> gained
> by doing it as a single step process - which does involve assertion
> of
> subscription to the charter - rather than a two step one, as I am
> doing...
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:09 PM
>> To: Governance Caucus
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The list discussed this before. I think it is adequate, and within
>> the charter to do what we have done before -
>>
>> - all IGC subscribers get access to the ballot
>> - in submitting a ballot a voter must agree that they subscribe to
>> the
>> charter.
>>
>> What was called the one stage process in the previous discussion
>>
>> The coordinators decided to go another route, I guess they believe
>> they have consensus - and they might.
>>
>> I am not asking for reconsideration so much as recording my
>> continuing
>> objection to the decision.
>>
>> I also will not be responding to the coordinators request.
>>
>> I do not see what else I can do.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 26 Jun 2008, at 15:07, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Avri
>>>
>>> I agree with your disagrement. But how do we move forward? You
>>> cannot
>>> just disagree and be contended at that. Put another option on the
>>> table.
>>> The ball is in your court
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On 6/26/08, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I second the e-motion.
>>>>
>>>> Unless we know who is and isn't in a member with standing, what is
>>>> the
>>>> significance of someone saying they second a motion?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
>>> Journalist/Outcome Mapper
>>> Special Assistant To The President
>>> Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
>>> ASAFE
>>> P.O.Box 5213
>>> Douala-Cameroon
>>> Tel. 237 3337 50 22
>>> Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
>>> Fax. 237 3342 29 70
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list