[governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Jan 9 17:20:19 EST 2011 

Hi,

Jus so you know, if you didn't already, I think that renewing ones membership through the annual assertion that one makes before voting is a critical component of membership.

I do not think that someone who voted once 3 years ago and never did again remains a member.

So no, it is not the act of voting that matters, it is the yearly assertion that one subscribes to the charter that has been linked to the vote.  Perhaps there need to be a way to make that assertion separate from the vote, and that may, though I am not sure, require a small tweak in the charter.  I have no objection to fixing the charter when necessary, and we have done so once already.  What I am very concerned with is the notion of a charter committee just opening it up and seeing how we can change it to meet all sorts of political aspirations.  If there is something that we should do, like allow for separate declarations of support of the charter, e.g. a membership paragraph, then a few people (i think it takes 10) should just suggest a change and we should vote on it.   We should not in any case allow for someone to remain a member without at least some yearly reaffirmation, no matter how that is done. And that is what I think the list being created by Jeremy does - which I believe is contra the charter.

Ian I understand that this is less important that position papers, but I do not see how this should be deprecated or why it would stop anyone from working on papers in another thread if there really were people who wanted to do so.

a.


On 9 Jan 2011, at 17:04, Ginger Paque wrote:

> I agree with Ian:
> 
> "Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database rather than the need for one."
> 
> This seems to be a good time to deal with this issue, as there is no pending vote to cause pressure. Concrete alternatives should be proposed to find a consensus solution. Don, do you have any suggestions for a format you would find acceptable?
> 
> Best, Ginger
> 
> On 1/9/2011 5:12 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Hi Don, you wrote
>> 
>>> There would appear to be a loan (sic) voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed.
>> 
>> Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database rather than the need for one.
>> 
>> As well, many if not most of the lists subscribers would by now realise that there is a need for the Charter to be revised  in several respects. But that’s an undertaking that is going to need a group to take action. (I am not volunteering!)
>> 
>> So I dont think Jeremy is acting alone. The silence of the majority of people on this list with the current discussions might have more to do with having discussed these issues before, or perhaps being disinterested in matters of administrative process and more interested in internet governance issues. I don’t think you can take relative silence to mean that everyone agrees with the points you make.
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> 
>> From: Don Cameron <dg_cameron at bigpond.com>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Don Cameron <dg_cameron at bigpond.com>
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:35:22 +1100
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site
>> 
>>> Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason?
>> 
>> David this point is exactly my concern and the reason I entered this conversation – We cannot claim professionalism unless we follow open and proper process.
>> 
>> In several unfortunate personalisation’s I and others have loosely been described as ‘lurkers’; ‘internet old timers’, and now in defining the right to abstain from voting, as someone who ‘doesn’t want to vote’ – yet none of these negative descriptors address the very real issue of one             persons interpretation of an organisational Charter being used to discriminate against membership. That’s what this discussion is all about.
>> 
>> Power building – yes. Democratic – no. 
>> 
>> There would appear to be a loan voice on this forum promoting both a need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. A majority would appear to be against such change; yet change is happening regardless.
>> 
>> The right of members for lazy consensus before the implementation of any change is discarded for the sake of one person’s interpretation of systems expediency.
>> 
>> Is this a right and proper process?
>> 
>> Don      
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein
>> Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:52 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Don Cameron
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site
>> 
>> 
>> This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy.
>> 
>> It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club. Actually, they'd do a much better job.
>> 
>> Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for whatever reason?
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> To: Don Cameron <dg_cameron at bigpond.com>; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Sent: Sun, 9 January, 2011 10:39:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site
>> 
>> On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter) as follows: “In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications, however it otherwise has no impact on membership.
>> 
>> 
>> Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise.  The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last election.  If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information (such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered.  Sorry about that.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers 
>> CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
>> 
>> Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world
>> 
>> for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress <http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress> 
>> 
>> Twitter #CICongress
>> 
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . 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, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> 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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list