[governance] Criterion for charter voting

Thu Sep 30 16:18:15 EDT 2010

Dear All,

I hold no view on the matter but have been reading the debate with much
interest. My comments are strictly on the interpretations of the term:-

*"Immediately prior to the elections"* and whether this is an objective or
subjective test. If your membership is the world of internet governance
gurus, disciples, followers, specialists, reporters, states, multinationals,
civil society etc
and they are from all over the world which means different timezones, are
they mobile (flight etc) and what if they are in a non-penetrated zone
where there is no ICT access for a period of time. What is "reasonableness"
for a multistakeholdership body?

What were the original drafters' intention in ensuring "time is of the
essence"? In examining these questions it may shed some light on the
rational of both sides of the debate and how we can come to a consensus.
More interestingly, who is the consumer in this aspect and what are the
principles of fairness and transparency? Are they being applied?

Why are rules made? (this is a rhetorical question - made to stimulate our
thought processes)

Believe it or not, this debate is a reflection of the conflict between the
evolution of forms of government based on philosphers such as Hobbes,
Montesqiueue, Locke who agreed that there should be checks and balances but
differed in their opinions on the forms of government.
Benedict Anson who talked of imaginary boundaries.

Eventually, the issues could evolve into what philosophy do we as a
multistakeholder group subscribe to? This is interesting because we come
from all forms of diverse cultural backgrounds, diverse forms of government
and are of course subjected to different laws?
What is the objective of the organisation? Who is a member? Whose views are
represented?

These questions and many more will help us start thinking of:-

1)philosophical platform which should be tied to the vision;
2)the form of government will be a natural consequence once (1) is
addressed;
3)there will be room for clear dialogue.

Strength of leadership is when there is foresight, ability to link and
connect the dots, ability to cater for everyone (does'nt mean they all have
to agree but they can agree to disagree), ability to consider the weak
amongst us.
If this organisation is going to be the template of multistakeholdership for
a myriad other issues and organisations in the world, then how it carries
itself, inclusive of its formative processes is also critical. Reaching
outcomes is important and process is important too. But the question is,
what kind of process and why did we choose this type of process.

Again, I would like to say that I am not taking any sides just merely
exploring the impact of "immediately after the elections" phrase.

Warm Regards from Sunny Fiji,

Sala
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/29/10, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be
> formally
> > considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After
> > all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People
> on
> > the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of
> particular
> > importance for the group, require as condition for participation that
> one's
> > involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the
> previous
> > vote. Is that really too much?
>
> The idea being debated is not an interpretation that voting in ANY
> single prior election qualifies for Charter voting, but the
> IMMEDIATELY prior election.
>
> Recall that there have been elections in which, before the election is
> over, people have to be urged to vote in order to have a quorum.
> Regardless of the type of election, it shows that with everyone's busy
> schedules, turnout can be a problem.  Thus, after every election there
> is a rotating but relatively large number of people disqualified for
> the next election if it is a Charter vote, and those people are not by
> any means just newcomers to the list.  It could be anybody.  It has
> included me.
>
> --
> 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
>

-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101001/70ccaa36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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