[governance] [process] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[Avri Doria]

On 28 Jun 2008, at 23:09, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> what it does say is that a ballot goes to every individual on the  
> list - and it is at the point of voting that they need to declare  
> that at that moment they see themselves as supporting the charter.


it has privately been pointed out to me that the ballot did not say  
this.  As i was accused of lying and trying to mislead people in the  
process, please let me correct myself:

the ballot said:

 > 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.

So, the person who wrote privately is right, i misremembered.  I  
believe that at the time we all knew that this was something that was  
defined in the charter and that it went without saying.  However, it  
would have been better if it had said at least "as defined in the  
charter"

To go further, it was a stupid thing for me to say, since the charter  
does not require support in order to vote,

to go back to the charter:


----
Voting Process

Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months  
before the election will be given a voter account.

As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that  
they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described  
elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information  
(i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to  
vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a  
personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self- 
defined member-voters will be published after the election with the  
results of the election.

Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the  
appeals process.

All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators,  
with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be  
made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will  
be stated, and are subject to appeal.
---

some points -

1. every subscriber to the list at least 2 months before the vote gets  
a ballot.  no constraints, not caveats.  nothing.  they get a ballot.

2. the self statement does make a reference to charter - "based on  
membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as  
part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on  
the voter form in order to vote)."  so it would have made sense to add  
"as defined in the charter'  in the ballot announcement.

3. no one brought this up at the time.

4. anyone could have appealed since the election is subject to an  
appeals process.  so if people think that lots of people did not  
understand that the condition for being a CS member of IGC were  
defined in the charter, perhaps they should have appealed.  As we do  
not have a statute of limitation on appeals, i suppose they still could.

5.  nothing asks that one subscribe to the charter, only that they  
meet the conditions described in the charter.  So i apologize again  
for getting carried away with the notion of having to believe in the  
charter in order to vote.  that was never the intent of the charter  
and i am sorry that i may have added any semblance of credence or  
legitimacy to that notion.


a.


note:  on the discussion of process making this list look less  
credible with some list subscribers.  i am sorry if it makes some  
squeamish to watch the transparent process of sausage being made. i do  
not think, however, that it makes the list less credible - should we  
do it in secret like government institutions often do?

i do, however, think that adding a label to identity those discussions  
that people are not interested in is a good idea.   i don't know if  
the list software we use has any facility to help do that.  i will try  
to add [process  to my message dealing with these boring issues in the  
future.  i do not know if i will have time to do anything automatic.   
and of course i cannot speak for what our coordinators might do or  
suggest.

btw, i consider us getting our transparent and open process correct,  
among the more important things we can do - if we cannot run our CS  
IGC in an open and transparent manner with accountability and  
adherence to our charter then what good are we?

____________________________________________________________
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