[governance] Criterion for charter voting

Wed Sep 29 07:30:07 EDT 2010

An Internet governance group hurts itself in advocating greater
democracy if it doesn't itself practice democracy.  That would include
not disfranchising anybody for any reason, unless it is truly a matter
of concern only to a subgroup (such as a utility rate district for one
town only).

Right now, the anti-"capture" philosophy results in denying the vote
to those who are in no way part of any recently arrived "capture"
group, thus it is unjust as against those people.  It's one thing to
punish or prevent capture, it's another thing to punish or prevent
innocents in order to protect against capture.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 9/29/10, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Perhaps it will be possible to split the voters
> by the qualifications Parminder mentions?
>
> That is, after the vote is complete, anyone who
> did not vote in the last election has their vote
> on the charter amendment voided.  And their vote
> on the coordinator positions would remain.  That
> would leave the correct voter pool, right?
>
> Jeremy could a process like this be completed automatically?
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> At 4:43 PM +0530 9/29/10, parminder wrote:
>>Dear All
>>
>>This is to draw your attention to an important matter.
>>
>>The voting eligibility for charter amendment and
>>for any other voting, including for electing a
>>coordinator is very different. While for the
>>latter, anyone who has been on the list for two
>>months and affirms membership through declaring
>>commitment to the charter can vote, for a
>>charter amendment only those who have voted for
>>the last election/ voting can vote. This special
>>condition has been put for voting on any charter
>>amendment to avoid capture, since charter
>>amendment is quite a serious matter, since
>>through any such amendment the very nature of
>>and procedures adopted by the caucus can be
>>changed.
>>
>>When I read that voting for charter amendment
>>and for electing a new coordinator will take
>>place at the same time, I brought the above
>>issue to the attention of the co-coordinator
>>in-charge of the voting/election, Jeremy, and
>>requested that since there are different voting
>>eligibility conditions for the two proposed
>>voting, holding them together will cause
>>confusion and should therefore be avoided. I
>>preferred that charter amendment be held
>>separately before the coordinator election, with
>>the voter list consisting of all those who had
>>voted for the last election, as is expressly
>>required by the charter.
>>
>>Jeremy replied that he is going to overcome this
>>problem simply by having a single process
>>whereby the coordinator voting immediately
>>precedes the charter amendment vote, and it will
>>'technically' be ensured that only those who
>>vote for coordinator election will be able to
>>vote for the charter amendment, which in his
>>view would meet the special voting eligibility
>>requirement for a charter amendment vote.
>>
>>I responded that though technically it may meet
>>the requirement, which too I doubt, it does not
>>observe the intent of the charter in spirit,
>>since the special condition of more strict
>>eligibility conditions for voting for charter
>>amendment has been put there with a clear
>>purpose of avoiding capture. It is for this
>>reason that the charter seeks to put some clear
>>time and space between the participation of
>>anyone in a vote for charter amendment and her/
>>his affirmation of IGC membership through
>>participation in an earlier election, when,
>>presumably, he/ she would have no idea of a
>>possible participation in a charter amendment
>>vote.
>>
>>  The present process, whereby any voting can be
>>held immediately preceding, but as a part of the
>>same process of,  a charter amendment vote
>>almost looks like writing a plan on how to
>>subvert the charter requirement of more
>>stringent voting criteria for charter amendment.
>>Even though the present exercise may be
>>well-intentioned, the fact that it opens up a
>>dangerous future possibility bother me a lot.
>>
>>I therefore consider the present voting process
>>as not proper, and propose a discussion on this
>>issue.
>>
>>Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>>You should just have received a personal email
>>>inviting you to cast your vote for the next
>>>co-coordinator of the IGC.  After you confirm
>>>your eligibility and cast your vote, you will
>>>also become eligible to vote on the
>>>recently-discussed charter amendment.
>>>
>>>If you did not receive your personal invitation
>>>email, please first check your junk email
>>>folder, and if you still do not have it, let me
>>>know.
>>>
>>>
>>>The draft form of the coordinator ballot and
>>>charter poll has been approved by Ginger also,
>>>but I will take primary responsibility for any
>>>disputes that people may wish to raise about
>>>the process adopted.
>>>
>>>The 2009 appeals team (Jeanette Hofmann, Adam
>>>Peake, Carlos Alfonso, Ken Lohento and Fouad
>>>Bajwa), who have not yet been replaced for
>>>2010, are (I hope) also available to hear any
>>>disagreements.
>>>
>>>Following the informal procedure adopted in
>>>previous years (the charter is, surprisingly,
>>>silent), the election ballot and charter poll
>>>will be open for 10 days from now, which ends
>>>on 9 September 2010, "rounded up" until
>>>midnight that night.
>>>
>>>The last subscriber who is eligible to affirm
>>>IGC membership is Alan Greenberg, who
>>>subscribed on 23 July 2010.  The first
>>>subscriber who missed out on that opportunity
>>>is Giorgio Simeoli who subscribed on 10 August.
>>> One
>>>subscriber, <mailto:emisa+ig at gmail.com>emisa+ig at gmail.com
>>>has an email address that is not technically
>>>capable of receiving a personalised invitation
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>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>http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>>>
>>>Read
>>>our <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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