[governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 31 08:54:47 EST 2010
I am not sure what issues exactly bother Deirdre and Tracy so much, but
let me try to respond to what I read.
I dont see what could be the problem in Jeremy transparently putting
forth the outcome of the process, without formally declaring the result
which, as per the the charter, should be called jointly. He clearly says
that "I expect to call a result soon after discussing with Ginger. The
result will be subject to appeal".
Two people objected to the process as not being proper, and so Jeremy in
a rather proactive manner went beyond what has been the normal practice
and described the precise outcomes of the process of calling consensus,
which has always been done on a 'yes' 'no' vote. How can now we be
accusing him of further violations is beyond me...
As for the issue of 'voting' and membership in developing IGC positions,
there is some degree of lack of clarity in the charter, and precedents
are followed, as established over the last many years.
Whether we count members or also include non-members, the result of
the vote would not have change. it is also important to see that Bill,
who called had earlier called the process into question, though on a
different issue, did ask Jeremy specifically about the status of the
voters, after the voting had started.
>And, I presume, to ascertain that they are IGC members in good standing, not just list subscribers, per standard practice? (Bill)
Since as per his later email, in being more proactive than normal in
discussing the voting outcomes threadbare, Jeremy was laboring under
the questions raised by Bill/ McTim on process issues, he as per Bill's
question, also clarified the status of the voters, and also took a count
disregarding non-members.
i do agree that this issue of whether only member's votes are counted or
every list subscriber's has been vague, and attempts to clarify this
issue has been not successful earlier. This may be a good time though.
I do think that anyone who has been on the list for 3 months should be
able to apply to the co-coordinators to be included in the members' list
after fulfilling due requirements. I also think that voter of only full
members, who have clearly affirmed desire to be part of this collective
process (independent of the current issue under consideration) , should
count. Otherwise, to give an example, many IGC list subscribers, having
interest in some institution etc (pl, it is only an example :) ), while
not otherwise committed to IGC's collective opinion forming process, and
thus not having applied for membership, may just vote enblock when some
statement involving that institution is being framed, which would
obviously be very unfair.
But I do agree this issue of whose vote counts in a rough consensus
forming process is a bit open right now. But this doesnt not at all mean
that we keep discouraging a new coordinator in his first consensus
call by open ended comments on 'things could be done better'.
Parminder
Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100131/373229f2/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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list