[governance] Simple and basic questions

[McTim]

Hi Ian,

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 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 appeals mechanism does NOT apply to this situation, nor am I
trying to change the decision of the NomCom. I am just trying to
prepare guidance for the future.

2 days ago, you said "Now its up to the Caucus to determine whether it
wants to adopt a policy position here."

This is all I am trying to promote.



>
> 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.
>

Did I suggest this? I just want the list.  After all, if we are to
exclude people who work for a class of non-profits, why is it silly to
ask for the names of those orgs?

> 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

but only AFTER the fact, not before the decision was reached, as is
mentioned in the charter.


 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.

Yes, and the nomcom was split on this, in other words, no consensus,
which brings up the point I have raised in the last week re: why was a
decision made in the absence of consensus.


>
> 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.

Only one by my count.

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)
>

but 2 days ago, you said it was time for us to make a decision, has
smt changed in last two days?

> 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.

If a nomcom wants to take this into account judging individual people,
that is their role, but to decide to exclude a class, that wasn't even
defined?? That is what I object so strongly too.


> Except that in a commitment to being open and transparent, this NomCom
> reported to its members the basis of its decision making.

After the fact (as above).

And as well it
> published details of who was nominated, something I personally disagree
> with.

per the charter (but I think I disagree as well).

>
> 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.

not possible according to my reading of the charter.

 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.

trying!!


-- 
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