[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Fouad Bajwa]

Hi all,

I received the message for voting and I was confused to see 7
questions and then a confirmation from Jeremy that I had completed a
survey and inquisitiveness to me further to explore what it was.The
questions took me through the vote for Co-Coordinator, nomination
committees (selecting one to do all tasks) to select CSTD WG member
nominations, MAG member nominations (where as none has been announced
on the governance list) and appeals team nomination.

First, I might have missed some form of call that may have been
specifically given prior to whether this would be an election, a
survey or a combination of both, without the prior consensus of the
governance list. Please confirm.

Second, there was a separate call for IGC nominations for the CSTD WG
to which I forwarded my nomination as well as made the comment that we
should be able to ensure that nominations would be actually present
during the two meetings in Geneva in Nov'10 and Feb'11 but no
confirmation came through whether we should discuss this possibility
and finally no call has been made for MAG members from the IGF
Secretariat nor on the IGC list and third the appeals team is set to
end in 2011 and thus there is sufficient time to constitute three
different Nomination Selection committees. The first for the CSTD WG
selection that may be done with the amendment of the two month prior
requirement. The MAG nomination committee can be constituted when the
IGF Secretariat actually sends a call that new members need to be
nomination. Finally there is sufficient time for the Appeals Team next
year.

Finally on the issue of capture. There is sufficient time to review
the IGC charter as we move towards a possible IGF mandate renewal to
enable more participation and reduce issues of capture and we can
start a separate thread for Charter Improvements. I am still not sure
about whether the two month requirement has to be there, this is
debatable but I would prefer it on a separate purposefully focused
thread on the issue.

I would like to request this approach of merging Election plus Survey
to be deemed as in-appropriate because it has been very confusing. I
appreciate Jeremy's effort but I am not in right of merging and
creating confusion on two different processes and gluing them into
Nomination Committees issues and then the misunderstandings of Charter
amendments to build up like this.

-- Fouad Bajwa

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:13 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> This is to draw you 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, emisa+ig at gmail.com has an email address that is not technically
> capable of receiving a personalised invitation
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
____________________________________________________________
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