[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Fouad Bajwa]

In continuation of my previous message, I received the following message:

Dear Fouad,

This email is to confirm that you have completed the survey titled
Internet Governance Caucus coordinator vote 2010 and your response has
been saved. Thank you for participating.

> Survey? Vote? Charter Amendments or Nomination Committee Selections? Confusing?


-- Fouad

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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