[governance] Re:amendment vote // Protected Class

[Eric Dierker]

I am very interested here in the reason for an extension.  Are the participants at Geneva a protected class that require special treatment under the rules?  For if they are not the reason given for extending the vote is surely discriminatory and voting fraud.
 
Giving privilege and special treatment and exception under the rules of society is really only a few hundred years old in any culture. You must remember that before that, the common man had basically no rights and only the elite had rights at all. You know "the King can do no wrong" and all that stuff under Ceasars and Khanhs. In fact the bulk of humanity under most rulers were merely chattel property of a "lord" of some sort.
 
Protected class is actually well described in an understanding of C++. In a more humane and in fact human social interaction model this link gives the run down quite nicely from a really neat UN, USA, handling of arguments. http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/Jul99/0051.html
 
So why would Geneva get this special treatment?  Have they been historically abused as a group?  Are they all Euro underclassmen of some sort? Are the gay, young, old, black, red, all handicapped? Just what is it?  The only two factors I can think of are that they are all either being funded to be there or they are indigenous to the region. Well that they are well educated and people of privilege probably is irrelevant.
 
What example does this list lead with?

--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 8:26 PM


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090927/062a0661/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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