[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

Thu Jun 26 07:43:34 EDT 2008

Parminder and all,

  I for one sympathize with your position and contention.  I think the
crux of the problem here is which interpratation of the Charter
is or is not the correct one AND as such, whom can or cannot
vote.  Frankly as the Charter does not directly diliniate whom has
voting rights or whom does not, whatever one person says is the
correct interpratation of the Charter is, does not seemingly reflect
the interests of good governance, and cannot as such be the
deciding factor as to whom can or cannot vote.  I hope the
IGC does not turn into a dictatorship or a collective dictatorship,
however benevelent such may be when such weighty issues that
may effect so many are being considered, discussed, and debated.

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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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