[governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC

[Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google]

I agree 100% with the issues raised by Deidre. The message by Jeremy
does raise several concerns and although the discussion on the topic
seems to have died a natural death without being actioned, it appears
that a more structured IGC moving forward could assist with ensuring
that the approach currently employed for consenus building is
enhanced.

On 1/31/10, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> This message raises several concerns for me which I hope can be
> discussed/clarified on the list.
>
> On 31 January 2010 03:59, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger.
>
> I feel that this could have been more happily phrased, indeed more
> happily done. In a situation which deliberately has TWO
> co-coordinators surely the process should be to discuss first and then
> jointly publish even a preliminary result.
>
>>  However, as indication of participation, my count says that after
>> removing
>> duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES +
>> thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working
>> groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention.
>> Of these, seven YES + thematic working groups votes, and one YES vote,
>> were
>> from non-members and have to be disregarded.
>
> PLEASE clarify the issue of "membership". This was not an election, it
> was an open vote to try to establish consensus. I have pasted in what
> seem to me to be the two relevant parts of the IGC charter below.
>
> "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months
> before the election will be given a voter account.
> As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that
> they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described
> elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information
> (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to
> vote).'
>
> While the language of this rubric seems to suggest that it is limited
> to elections, it is the only guidance the Charter offers for a "Voting
> Process" which in fact is the heading for the paragraph. So is this to
> govern the general "voting process" on issues, or only election
> voting?
>
> See the paragraph below. Is it the case that "an overwhelming majority
> of the IGC" DOES NOT include those people who have joined the group
> since the most recent election? In this case this would exclude those
> who became interested and joined the list during or after the most
> recent IGF meeting.
>
> Decisions
>
> The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible.
> When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be
> jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the
> purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming
> majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any
> dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected.
>
>> I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger.  The result
>> will be subject to appeal.
>
> For statements defined as coming from two people the first person
> plural "we" or an impersonal third person plural "The co-coordinators"
> (although clumsy) would be preferable.
> But then I'm an English teacher, and fussy :-)
>
> Best wishes
>
> Deirdre
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> CI is 50
>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
>> 2010.
>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
>> rights around the world.
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>> necessary.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t