[governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
José Félix Arias Ynche
jaryn56 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 17 12:16:53 EST 2013
Se puede saber quienes votaron... y quienes no
Y que voten, los que no votaron...y si no desean votar o no quieren votar,
hay que ver si realmente quieren seguir como member del CIG...
Se necesita una depuracion...
*Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche*
* Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
2013/2/17 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
>
> Ian,
> Thanks, comments related to point 7 may be discussed further.
>
> I think, Proposer may simply initiate a formal request to the coordinators
> to provide a "benefit of doubt" and the fraction .667 is not a complete
> decimal value or represent a full vote. But it depends.
>
> Regards
>
> Imran
>
> ------------------------------
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 11:36 AM PKT Ian Peter wrote:
>
> >Hi Imran,
> >
> >I think your analysis is very good and helpful. One caveat, however – the
> conditions you refer to in your point 7 refer to the original adoption of
> the Charter only, and not to amendments.
> >
> >But otherwise, your analysis I think correctly points out that Proposal 3
> was actually adopted by the narrowest of margins, and proposal 1 misses out
> by only one vote (the other proposals are 6 and 9 votes short respectively).
> >
> >Your suggested option 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.
> >
> >In other words – if just one person is able to claim that they didnt
> receive the ballot, or were unable to complete the ballot for a technical
> reason, perhaps the co coordinators can allow a late ballot for persons
> thus affected.
> >
> >I’m not sure that will affect the proposals which are currently 6 and 9
> votes short, but perhaps the proposal which is one vote short might be able
> to be amended.
> >
> >So I think your analysis might be very valuable in moving this forward.
> It’s up to the co coordinators to determine next steps but I think that’s
> useful information to assist them!
> >
> >Ian Peter
> >
> >
> >From: Imran Ahmed Shah
> >Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:18 PM
> >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Norbert
> Bollow
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> >
> >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.org to 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
> >
> >
>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/e4fe8d56/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list