[governance] Re: UPDATED MEMBERSHIP LIST

[NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS]

This is Pastor Peters OMORAGBON-confirming my membership of the IGC
Pastor Peters OMORAGBON 
Executive President/CEO 
Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) 
Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org  NABHI as affiliate of the United Nations is poised to uphold the TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it pledges to promote and publicise for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE believe in a World of Law and Order, Peace and Security with RESPECT for Fundamental Human Rights.  NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY


--- On Sun, 1/31/10, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Sunday, January 31, 2010, 7:12 PM
> All,
> 
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> wrote:
> > Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling
> of the just-concluded
> > drafting exercise and consensus call
> 
> Just to clarify, it was the closing of the statement and
> the
> re-opening it (after a reiteration that it was closed) that
> I objected
> to, not the drafting exercise itself.
> 
> , and Bill and I continued that
> > discussion off-list.  He suggested I bring it back on
> list, so I am going to
> > summarise the underlying issues between us here
> (rather than, as in our
> > off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't
> include such-and-such
> > a comment in mind-numbing detail).
> > As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I
> have led, I will seek to
> > draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach
> that incorporates
> > these steps:
> > * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it
> realistically draw, any
> > support other than from its proponent?  (This is not
> an onerous test to
> > pass.)
> > * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant
> number
> > of other members that remain strongly held despite
> an adequate period of
> > discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough
> consensus could emerge?
> > * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy
> both camps where
> > possible.
> > * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied
> with the compromise,
> > omit text on this issue from the statement
> altogether.
> > * Otherwise, include the text.
> > * My standard for including changes becomes more
> stringent when the last
> > text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more
> so during the
> > consensus call (when it is basically limited to
> correcting errors).
> 
> That was not my perception of what happened this time.
> 
> The charter does not specify how text is drafted or
> edited.  However,
> given how messy the process was this time, i would not wish
> to use
> this method going forward.
> 
> In any case, it seems that most folk prefer the statement
> as amended
> to include Thematic WGs.  I have no problem with us
> issuing such a
> statement, as it does seem to reflect the majority of
> opinion of
> Caucus Members.
> 
> However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting
> and finding
> consensus.  IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing
> coordinators.
> 
> Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO
> we do NOT
> vote on statements.  We indicate support for
> statements (or lack
> thereof).  While the difference is subtle it is
> important for some of
> us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as
> is.
> 
> Let's NOT do "Preliminary results of" anything, as it only
> serves to
> muddy the waters.
> 
> Charter says:
> "In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the
> two
> coordinators together can make a decision on rough
> consensus subject
> to an appeal as described below."
> 
> In this case, it seems clear there is a consensus of those
> who have
> voiced an opinion.  Two coordinators calling rough
> consensus are
> needed only when there is no clear consensus.
> 
> 
> > Bill differs from me on this process.  He will
> correct me if I
> > mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers
> that all suggestions
> > for changes (even contradictory ones) should be
> included in the text in
> > brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy)
> consensus emerges.
> >  Moreover if substantive changes are called for even
> after a consensus call,
> > and there is sufficient time to re-open for
> discussion, the call should be
> > rescinded.
> > It may be possible for technology to come to our aid
> here, in that we could
> > experiment with collectively drafting documents online
> without the need for
> > confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed
> sections, as Bill's
> > approach would (in my view) have required in this
> case.
> 
> As long as we use the website specified in the charter.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where
> it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


   
____________________________________________________________
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