[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[Parminder]

Avri

> To blame me for the lack of elections seems just a tab unfair..

Yes, it would be unfair, and I am not doing it... I am just blaming the
'issue' and the loops it gets into .... I know your position on this and we
have discussed it online and offline before, and you have been consistent,
so I have no problem with it.. but some others have been less consistent and
have spoken perhaps without considering what impact it has on an ongoing IGC
process, which was declared a few days back, and has been declared many
times before. 

> 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.  


Of course you have the absolute right... my mail spoke more about what you
said as having done before, which I insisted was not what was done before
and that it confused the members... 

> 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.


You know that I think that is most unfortunate. But what are my options. I
am convinced that a certain process is right and in the best interests of
the group. I think there is a good enough consensus behind it. The fact that
I think your position is so unfortunate is why I have kept on stalling this
process to see which way we can go ahead without reaching any unfortunate
breaking point. Since you wrote most of the charter I am ready to make an
exception in your case and put your name automatically on the members list,
and send a ballot. I.e. if no one objects... But I am not sure what would I
do if another person asked for the same exception, and then another.

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 2:44 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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