[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

Sat Sep 26 16:58:18 EDT 2009

Ian and all,

  No offense intended to anyone, but I agree with the explanation as a
reason for the extension of the voting period, but do not agree that
that extension was justified.  Voting responsibility should take precidence
over other activities, not the other way around as one of your explanations
suggests.  Second if a "Spam Trap" was the cause of some not receiving
ballots than it seems very clear to me that such "Spam Traps" were ill
advised and implimented which leads me to determine that whomever made
those decisions to set those "Spam Traps" were not compatent and remain so
unless or until they are perminantly replaced or those particular "Spam Traps"
are removed and the policy or reasons for their implementation is reviewed
and revised accordingly and without further delay.

  In conclusion and with all due respect, it should not be the job of
the returning officer to determine whether a extension of a voting
period is warranted or justified.  That decision should be the sole
responsibility and at the majority determination of the members 
themselves in any ligitimate democratic process.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>Sent: Sep 26, 2009 3:26 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>
>Hi Danny,
>
>Anwering yours and other questions -
>
>The attached report gives you all the figures you need I think on voting
>numbers and how the 2/3 was determined.
>
>And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a secret ballot - the
>coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of votes received
>from time to time. We were never aware of which way any individual voted.
>The only person who would have that information is the returning officer.
>
>The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a few factors - and
>indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning officer before the
>ballots were even distributed because of a delay experienced earlier on. The
>first reason that led us to believe we should extend was that the initial
>circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days because of a
>corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the second reason which
>came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva activities and
>consultations which may have distracted people from voting.
>
>That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the position of
>voting was at the time the extension was announced, but will concede that
>the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not have reached the
>2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see anything improper
>in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance to participate.
>
>
>
>
>On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>> 
>> The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be approved by no less than
>> two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC.
>> 
>> To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would you might be good enough
>> to tell us 
>> (1)  the total number of IGC members
>> (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative and how many in the negative
>> on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the election.
>> 
>> One would hate to think that the election process was gamed through the
>> extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could be met.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Cc: "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Results of charter amendment vote
>>> 
>>>  
>>> As co coordinators we have pleasure
>>> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment adopted. A
>>> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour of the
>>> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number of
>>> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of members of
>>> IGC for amending the charter, we have no hesitation in
>>> declaring the motion carried.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A full report on the decision is attached. It contains a
>>> description of the process followed and some recommendations
>>> and suggestions to clarify various matters which emerged
>>> during the process.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his assistance
>>> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot. Also to
>>> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone who voted
>>> and helped to make this worthwhile change possible.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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
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