[governance] Criterion for charter voting

Wed Sep 29 10:59:54 EDT 2010

My 3 cents: 

1: I'm with Parminder on being careful with charter amendmentsto preserve the anti-capture mechanisms put in place earlier; since while it may not be the case now real issues have arisen in past and may in future.

2: And as for hurting/disenfranchising innocents by following 1) - all you need to do is hang on the list a bit longer and continue to affirm charter, and we've captured you; so I don't see it as a problem.

3: Changing rules/procedures once a vote has begun....I agree that doesn't look good for an internet governance caucus. But I defer to others on how to resolve Avri's teachable moment.

Lee
________________________________________
From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:36 AM
To: Paul Lehto
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting

On Wednesday 29 September 2010 04:54 PM, Paul Lehto wrote:

The problem with the interpretation to "avoid capture" of only
allowing charter votes from those who voted in the last election is
that it greatly facilitates a different kind of capture:

Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other voting. It states that

"In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."

Pl see http://www.igcaucus.org/charter . I know you are a great upholder of letter and spirit of the 'law' and will see the point in this perspective. Parminder

 One may
monitor those who voted in the last election and, when that mix is
favorable, ram through the charter amendment based on this subset of
the total electorate.  And then another amendment could be passed,
based on the same consideration of not having voted in the last
election.  Perhaps this could be called "super-capture."

I've written before that a proper interpretation, at least in my view,
of the Charter would result in a fair and democratic voting method,
but it hasn't been interpreted consistently that way in the past.

The odd thing is that I am valuable enough to at least be asked about
the Charter, and yet after missing one election I have never been
qualified or registered to vote at any time in the year or two I've
been on the list.  Perhaps I am now, but it's hard for me to know
because some of the procedures are, to me, democratically
counter-intuitive.

Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 9/29/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net><mailto: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<mailto:emisa+ig at gmail.com>
<mailto:emisa+ig at gmail.com><mailto: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_

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765><http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.

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