[governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination

Sun Feb 26 16:59:43 EST 2012

Dear Lee,

Thank you for your comments. The thing is under the Charter, only the
NomCom can choose the Appeal Team or renew the Appeal Team. It is not the
Coordinators, not the Appearl Team and neither the IGC at learge who can
renew or select the Appeal Team.

As such, currently we have one NomCom who have just selected the MAG
Nominees. They are our best option at the moment to select or renew the
Appeal Team (and not out of any coercion/influence from any of us).

I had raised that the other option under the current rules is for a new
NomCom to be appointed to select the Appeals Team or renew the same. This
would take 2 months or so.

Under these circumstances, our options are narrow. Possible options right
now are to see whether people who are fighting for have an immediate
Appeals Team still want to complain about the NomCom that selected the MAG
because as it is under the Charter, they are our only immediate best bet in
terms of renewing the Appeals Team or selecting one.

Let us dialogue around the issue.

One of the problems from a policy perspective if we deliberately choose to
reject the current processes under the Charter, we open and create a
pattern and precedence to breach procedures etc in the future.

Like all of you, we need an Appeals Team and we need one convened whether
they are renewed or selected, it is important that they are selected.

>From my own personal opinion, the Charter needs to be reviewed asap.

Kind Regards,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Sala,
>
> Thanks for your comments and clarifications.
>
> I am speaking as an IGCer now and not necessarily as an appeals team
> member, which I may or may not be ; )
>
> Re the Appeals Team and NomCom and etc...
>
> From a strict constructivist point of view I agree you (Sala) are likely
> correct and some amendments/elaborations on eventualities in the case of x
> y and z may be needed to the Charter.
>
> On the other hand, I agree with Avri re usual IGC practice and historical
> precedence on how the Charter has been interpreted to date.
>
> And this is not uncommon or necessarily a criticism of IGC or the Charter
> and any specific action past or present.
>
> For example, if far more legalistic than cs UN procedures can be amended
> on the fly in various ways around the IGF...e.g., UN docs and staff stating
> a MAG will expire by x date and then change it to y date, then so can we.
>
> Meaning: the Appeals Team whose term technically has expired, as Avria
> notes, is the last known Appeals Team. In other cases we have had
> coordinators serve on for months past the 'official' expiration of their
> term for one reason or another, agreed by general list consensus, their
> help was still needed.
>
> So the expedient solution at the moment may be to turn to the list and ask
> - does anyone object to the last known Appeals Team being asked to -
> continue, until another Appeals team can be called.
>
> Then it is the collective of IGC and not you or the NomCom or the Appeals
> Team making the decision.
>
> If the collective objects, then fine, something else must be done.
>
> My 2 cents trying to help us wade through this. And not that I am
> particularly looking for more to do right now, in my possibly (or not)
> Appeals Team capacity.
>
> Lee
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta T.
> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 26, 2012 1:30 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against
> MAG Nomination
>
>   Dear Parminder,
>
> Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter.
>
> To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter.
> The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision
> must be aligned to the Charter.
>
> The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that
> decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when
> they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only
> the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team.
>
> Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that
> were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the
> Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal
> Team.
>
> On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom
> to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team.
> When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had
> to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so
> if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be
> possibilities of "conflict:.
>
> Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is
> being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew"
> the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very
> impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his
> Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the
> reefs.]
>
> This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to
> activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new
> Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom.
>
> In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case
> has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the
> NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by
> force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators
> influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to
> select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and
> procedures prescribed in the Charter.
>
> Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is
> certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put
> to the list.
>
> My comments are inline:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>> **
>> Dear Sala
>>
>> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's
>> nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I
>> concur)  that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with
>> this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified.
>>
>
>
>> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily
>> disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals
>> committee.
>>
>
> Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have
> no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are
> many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above.
>
>
>> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from
>> an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power- whether deliberate or inadvertent -is one of the most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds
>> like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance.
>>
>> If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please
> provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse.
> What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated.
>
>
>> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new
>> ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period,
>> till they are replaced by a new set.
>>
>
> Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have
> been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the
> Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members.
> We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each
> time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead
> and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did
> say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope.
>
>
>
>> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way,
>> till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical
>> need and importance should be obvious.
>>
> The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs
> revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members
> at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available
> in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the
> issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom,
> who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or
> reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for
> discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list]
>
>
>> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee
>> is wrong.
>>
>
> The decision was based on the Charter.
>
>
>> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no
>> appeals committee.
>>
>
> I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the
> current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning
> the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is
> it not?
>
>>
>> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator
>> incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation
>> for us to be....
>>
>> This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter
> that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review
> current procedures and guidelines.
>
>
>> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect.
>>
>
> You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team
> which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have
> attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had
> recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if
> it is the will of the list.
>
>
>> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators
>> should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest.
>>
>
> That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My
> recommendations are to review the Charter.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> parminder
>
>
>> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Imran,
>>
>> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG
>> NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly
>> find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February,
>> 2012.
>>
>> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>
>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120227/69a8a9f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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