[governance] Simple and basic questions

[Ian Peter]

McTim there is an appeals mechanism in place and you are of course welcome
to use it and I encourage you to do so if you feel the charter has been
abrogated. Go for it. 

The NomCom has completed its work and disbanded. Your questions are getting
sillier and sillier IMHO and like Adam I suggest you move on. The NGO
movement in Japan is not about to collapse due to an evil CS NomCom usurping
their rights.

This NomCom decided that, when its decision was likely to be controversial,
it would expose its internal reasoning so that the general caucus could
debate issues involved and thus improve CS processes and policies. I guess
in doing so it thought there would be a considered and rational debate, with
people realizing, as the NomCom did, that quite different and quite
legitimate positions existed on some issues. Particularly on conflicts of
interest that might exist for full time employees of central internet
governance organizations.

The NomCom could just as easily have simply exercised its judgement and
given no reasons whatsoever. It didn't. Instead, in addition to suggesting
the issues be debated and future policy determined by Caucus, NomCom members
have explained to you in quite a lot of detail some of the thoughts members
put forward. Nothing to do with volunteers, consultants, NGOs in general,
human rights, cctlds, hate campaigns, dragons, discrimination, Japanese NGOs
or Nazis. (the latter to evoke Godwin's rule because its time this thread
ended and we moved on)

All of this has been explained to you and if you don't get it, try to
re-read both the NomCom report and the various responses you have got. They
are specific, and exposing to the Caucus something the Caucus can either
accept or change in future. Or re-word. I'm happy whatever direction is
accepted in future, and confident that what was done in the past was done
with the best of intentions by a dedicated group of people giving of their
own time to assist a common cause. Disagree with them if you will, but
please don't question their integrity.

I'm not sure any future NomCOm will be so open and transparent in commenting
on the issues that arose for it. Like George, I tend to agree the whole
thing "exhibits enormous overkill and is an attempt to be incredibly pure
and correct (and time consuming) in the process"

And, BTW, I can assure you having been a member of ISOC's Nomcom as well
recently that conflict of interest issues arising from full time employment
by an internet governance body have been taken into account in the technical
community in the past in judging and rejecting candidates. Nothing new here.
Except that in a commitment to being open and transparent, this NomCom
reported to its members the basis of its decision making. And as well it
published details of who was nominated, something I personally disagree
with. 

This NomCom's work is complete, and short of a formal appeal being mounted
and my being summonsed I wont be debating its work with you or anyone. I
would however suggest that its recommendations be considered carefully,
particularly as regards an independent chair, something that did not happen
this year. If you want to improve the results, I think you will first have
to improve the process.



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: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 May 2008 18:07
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Simple and basic questions
> 
> Hullo Adam,
> 
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> >> Dear NomCom members, (and willie, milton, et. al.)
> >>
> >> IF we let this draconian decision by the 2008 NomCom stand,
> >
> >
> > The nomcom's decision was in line with discussion on the list before the
> > nomcom began it's work.
> 
> It was out of line actually, in that the discussion on the list didn't
> give the nomcom carte blanche to ignore or abrogate the charter!
> 
> >It reflects the majority of comments (and I say
> > that as someone who was in the minority at the time...)
> 
> "However, their representation should not be at the expense of civil
> society participation" DOES NOT mean "go ahead and ignore the charter.
> 
> >
> > Move on.
> 
> 
> So, you get your questions answered, but I don't get mine answered?
> Which non-profit orgs in Japan are now excluded from CS nominatiorn?
> I really want to know, and if they are paying attention, I expect they
> want to know as well.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1469 - Release Date: 5/27/2008
> 1:25 PM

____________________________________________________________
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