[governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Imran Ahmed Shah ias_pk at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 17 00:18:15 EST 2013 

IGC Charter Amendment Conflict Resolution Note
Date:
17th Feb 2013
To:          IGC
CS Members              
From:    Imran Ahmed
Shah
Dear IGC CS Members,
With
reference to the recent Formally Proposed Charter Amendment Proposals, we
observed conflict to finalize and accept the survey poll results. I am not
appeal team member or mediator but being an observer and IGC Voting Member, may
perform a little bit effort about arbitration function. Let me try to rephrase the result
and that will finally help to conclude the survey poll outcomes. 
1.       Recent Results of the IGC
Charter Amendment is as follows:
76 responses were submitted,
though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were
compulsory.
On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
2.       With reference to the
Charter Amendments to approve, Charter says:
“Amendments to the
Charter
This charter can be
amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as
approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The
membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most
currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted
in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.”
3.       Now as per Charter, we have
to recall the voters of the previous election results:
“There were 129 people who commenced the survey. One
of them self-identified as not being a member of the Internet Governance
Caucus, and one of them bailed out when asked that question. This leaves 127
people who self-identified. Of those, six people claimed that they had already
voted in this year's election, so they were not offered the opportunity to vote
again. Of the remaining 121, 106 took that opportunity.”
4.       By reviewing
the rule “everyone
who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the
charter”, and
result of the coordinators election, (as declared by Dr Jeremy), 106 used their
vote in the previous election.

Note:Point to be noted, the charter say about “everyone
who voted in the previous election”, and does not say “last one
year elections”
So: Two-thirds (2/3) of 106 = 70.667
(rounding figure is 71)
5.       Result: (http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments)
a.       According to
the above statistics, following proposal has required 71 votes in favour:
i.e. Proposal 3, which was as follows:
----------------------------
On proposal 3, 71 voted in
favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
3. Proposal of Jeremy
and co-proposers on updating the reference to the mailing list
Under "Working
methods", update the address of the mailing list from governance at lists.cpsr.orgto governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
----------------------------
b.      If 70.667  is rounded as 70, one more option may be qualified and that is Proposal
1.  
On proposal 1, 70 voted in
favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
----------------------------
1. Proposal of Avri and
co-proposers on Voting (regarding the affirmation of caucus members and the
provision of an "abstain" option)
"Prior
to voting the prospective voter must personally ascertain that they are a
member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a
voter must affirm membership on the voter form prior to voting). The decision
to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the
criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published
after the election with the results of the election.

All ballots will include the ability for voters to abstain on any choice
included on the ballot."
----------------------------
6.       There are some
discussion on the mailing list that:
a.       the information
related to Voters List Selection and significant information about the required
Quorum (2/3 of voters) and observer members, voting and non-voting members were
not communicated to the list, 
b.      Survey Poll
deadline intimation or reminders were not released, and 
c.       Also requested
to extend the same survey time 
Remarks:Discussion about the selection of
previous or current coordinators election, required quorum and some questions
about the poll are on record. These observations or objections may be submitted
to Appeal Team but there is no strong objection that could help to declare the current
survey poll “INVALID” and to re-run the same. However, any objection from
the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time,
or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the
given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
7.       Now, what’s
next, how to proceed “The way forward:
There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options”
“Any options that may remain in the draft charter after
thirty (30) days, will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance
process. In the case that there are options, the vote will be organized to
first ask for acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter with options
left unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote on the options. For
each case where there are options, the option that receives the most votes will
be selected.”
There is provisioning in the charter
regarding the unresolved options, we have to prepare a next Survey Poll for the
acceptance of the latest form of the Charter, and we can arrange to resolve the
issue of the remaining proposed amendments:
a.       by the remaining voters within
this 30 day’s Survey Poll, the unresolved amendments may be submitted to the
voting members asking that if they are not comfortable with the version of the
charter, which of the following proposed option they would prefer to be
included in the Charter. 
b.      If we do not include, a fresh
revised survey may be initiated through the same way, but… after the 30 day’s
Survey Poll. We may expect a technical question “should we require the complete
process from bottom, that requires “proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members”, I think this may be resolved after discussion on
the mailing list.
Thank & Regards
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/90c39df4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC Charter Amendment - Conflict Resolution Note.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 500313 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/90c39df4/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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

More information about the Governance mailing list