[governance] IGC membership

Wed Sep 30 18:47:22 EDT 2009

It seems to me that, UNLESS there's a charter provision in the
immediate area that governs "no longer being a member", then we likely
do have a situation of reasonable leeway (unlike the 2/3 issue, IMO).

Assuming no specific provisions on aging off members, a reasonable
procedure is to send a communication reasonably likely to be received
to all those who we are not sure are active members, requiring an
affirmative response to stay a member (opt in).  This should get rid
of all those people who truly are inactive and therefore raising the
bar on the 2/3 requirement a bit unfairly high.

After the above effort, perhaps involving two communications, then the
membership list will be solidified and lowered, probably at least by
one if not by many.  From that plateau, proper elections can proceed
with a somewhat lower 2/3 requirement in terms of the gross number of
ballots needed.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 9/29/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I'm feelin' that collective responsibility right now. I AM the IGC....
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:13 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] IGC membership
>
> The membership issue of this group certainly needs to be sorted out.
>
> I have said this before, but I can see only one real way out. To have a
> clear membership which is renewed bi-yearly. It doesnt matter if there are
> only 30-40 such members. They need to feel a collective (sorry for using
> that word, Milton :) ) responsibility for the caucus. At present it is too
> much of 'some one else will do it' and coordinators are left with an
> impossible job.
>
> Organizational issues should be dealt by this members list, with free and
> regular references to the larger group, which consists of those who are
> interested in the caucus, in the matters of getting information,
> contributing, and deliberating,  but not willing to take much
> responsibility, which is of course very fine. For  most purposes one will
> never feel the difference while participating in the regular larger
> group.... it will only be more or less an exceptional thing to take matters
> to the members group
>
> Otherwise we will keep ending up in some absurd situations of the kind
> Milton refers to.
>
> I appeal to coordinators to take this issue up.
>
> parminder
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the procedure
> used.
> The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership portion
> who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this attracts 200 people
> who call themselves "members" at point A and after two years 35% of them
> lose interest and stop participating, then no charter amendments would ever
> be possible. If the vote were a close one it would be different, of course.
> As it is, all that happened was that the vote extension allowed the will of
> an overwhelming majority to be executed.
> ________________________________
> From: Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Jeffrey A.
> Williams
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
> Dear list,
> after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been
> following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite
> my silence.
>
> I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding
> to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time
> and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look
> forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do.
>
> I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have
> aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this
> period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in
> favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against,
> I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to
> adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also
> because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made
> within the regular voting period or during the extension period.
>
> I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the
> voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right?
>
> Best,
>
> Magaly Pazello
>
>
>
> 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams
> <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com<mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>>
> Danny and all,
>
>  There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not
> necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have
> occurred.  Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that
> suspicion.
>
>  So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't
> ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com<mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com>>
>>Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter
>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
>>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>>
>>Ian,
>>
>>Thank you for the clarification.  Please be advised that I am considering
>> the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural
>> irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my
>> ultimate decision.
>>
>>One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the
>> amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to
>> pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the
>> pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded
>> to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to
>> obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred.
>>
>>Is this impression substantially correct?  If so, in my view such actions
>> constitute an improper gaming of the process.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Danny Younger
>>
>>[...]
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
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