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

Sun Feb 26 18:41:14 EST 2012

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> On 26 Feb 2012, at 16:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> > Your comments are based on the assumption that there is an Appeals Team.
>
> That is my presumption.  And as a member of that appeals team I do not see
> where a co-co gets the authority to declare it not so.

The Charter, specifically states:

"An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals
board *will
be selected yearly* by a randomly selected nominating committee *as defined
within the Charter*."  [Underlining and emphasis is mine]

>  Especially in a case where their judgement and activities might be an
> issue.
>
> >
> >    Issue  - Is there an Appeals Team?
> >
> > Things to consider:
> >
> >       • Under the Charter, what is the term of the Appeal Team
> appointment?
>
> Doesn't say specifically.  It says it will be selected yearly.  One wasn't.
>
> It also says there is an Appeals Team
>
> >> The IGC will have two coordinators, and an appeals team.
>

This is not contended.

> >
> >
> >> The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected
> nominating committee as defined
>
>
> >       • When was the NomCom commissioned to activate the process of
> selection of  the Appeal Team?
>
> Never was.
>
> I agree, it never was

> >       • Was there a renewal process by the NomCom?
>
> Nope
>
> I agree this has not happened yet.

> >       • When did the renewal process occur?
>
> Didn't.
> Do not see how these questions are relevant.  It does not need to be
> renewed, in fact can't as there need to be new people on a new appeals team.
>
> They are extremely relevant because it is a critical consideration that
> had to be factored in arriving at the decision in the first instance. The
> basis of the complaint was that an Appeal member could not be one of the
> candidates considered or Nominees for the MAG.
>

> >       • Under the Charter, can the Appeal Team assume that their term
> extends beyond one year of their prescribed term? [If so what is the basis
> of the assumption and is it prescribed under the Charter?]
> >
>
> I do not see how they can assume anything other than that their terms
> extends until they are replaced.
>
> You are saying that they can assume that their terms are extended.

> And that has been the practice since the charter was created.
>
Just because it has been the practice does'nt make it legitimate. I had
asked the question whether NomComs were involved in the selection of the
Appeal or the renewal.

>
> For co-cos, as well as appeals team.  I think this is the third time it
> has happened to the appeals team.  Never before did the co-cos declare it
> gone.
>
> I speculated about it being gone at one point, but a review of everything
> said so far by others, convinces me that there is still an appeals time.
>
If we go by this logic, we say that the provision within the Charter is
absurd and therefore we can assume the extension. I actually think the
entire Charter needs to be reviewed (my personal opinion) to give room for
things like extending or assuming renewals.

>
> A few points of my own:
>
> - no one has brought this issue to the appeals team
> - if anyone, especially the co-cos beleive that we do not have an appeals
> team, I find it extraordinary that no one has initiated a process to create
> one.  It is negligent of the co-cos to allow the IGC to run without one if
> that is what they beleive is happening.

If you recall I had mentioned that we had narrow options. The use of the
word
"negligent" implies a breach of duty of care. The issue of what a
reasonable person would have done is also taken into consideration. Take
for example, the fact that the NomCom were given a month to review
applicants and candidates and also over the holidays. In hindsight, the
process to initiate the NomCom process to select new NomCom for the
purposes of selecting an Appeals Team should have been done in October,
2012. If I had known what I had known today, this would have been done then
and for this failure, I apologise to everyone in the IGC.  In January, it
became apparent that there were possible complaints against the only NomCom
that is available and I had to exercise care in protecting the NomCom to
enable them (in the event that we did not opt to select a new Nom Com that
would take 2 months under the current Charter rules)  to be commissioned
under the Charter to renew or select a new Appeals Team.

However, as circumstances would have it, they came under fire and were
criticised for the way that they carried out their roles in the first
sitting or selection process. Was I able to foresee that the NomCom Appeal
Team would be subject to possible appeals and complaints? In hindsight, I
should have been able to.

I am happy to step down as co-coordinator and agree that I should have
foreseen and forecasted better.

 If they just think  the old one is still standing by, that is a bit remiss
but within normal practice, if they think the IGC is running without one,
they it is truly a problem since the IGC depends upon the existence of the
appeals team for its governance process legitimacy.  Though never yet used,
without an appeals team, the co-cos become dictators.

Respectfully, you will see that our style is very collaborative, we welcome
dialogue, we don't like to see anyone marginalised. Being a dictator has
all kinds of connotations which I outrightly reject. If anything, I was
trying to carry out my responsibilities in compliance with the Charter.

- in some ways the deficiency of the co-cos actually making sure that the
appeals team be replaced is a bigger issue than the specific issue of a
member of the appeals team being named by the Nomcom.

I have a lot to learn no doubt and will definitely learn from this. There
is room for alot of improvements and will definitely make sure that this is
not repeated. I would be looking into revising the Coordinators guidelines
to ensure that the process of selection of Appeal Team is done in advance
etc. For the inconvenience to IGC, I apologise.  Izumi and I will meet
today as we are having our monthly meeting and we will revert with a
decision.

Since the UNSG's office plans to allow two of the reps to continue, and
since with all the resignations only two remain*, there probably was not
chance they would be removed from the MAG, no matter what IGC said.  The
appointment of an appeals team members by the Nomcom is a moot point as he
probably get to stay on the MAG as he wishes even without IGC endorsement.

avri

* at least i think that is the case.

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120227/a3b90990/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