[governance] Appeal request Re: [] Updates on MAG 2013

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Jan 7 08:53:47 EST 2013 

Hi,

If 4 voting members appeal to the team, it is ok to appeal. 
I think that having a single coordinator is no reason either way.

If members think the rules are being abused 
and that the members are being ignored, 
they should appeal.  
I am trying to appeal

I understand that you don't agree, 
and it looks like very few people do,
so it may be a moot issues.

As far as I know the appeals team serves until it is replaced.
as i thought the co-co's did.  

Remind me again, 
why did you step down before you had been replaced?


avri

On 7 Jan 2013, at 05:41, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Dear all, as already retired from co-co, I still feel a good deal of
> responsibility
> for some issues in this thread.
> 
> I also like to point out that the current Appeals Team's term in
> theory is for 2012,
> and we are already into 2013. As we know, the selection of 2012 Appeals Team
> was late and only seated in late July last year.
> 
> So I am in favor of making 2012 Appeals team to be in charge for
> another 6 months
> should the list, and the Team members agree with.
> 
> Yet, if we agree with this flexible interpretation of the Charter for
> the Appeals
> Team, allowing the past NomCom to be in charge of MAG renewal nomination
> would not deserve for the Appeals team to investigate if the
> Coordinator's decision
> is abuse and in violation of the Charter.
> 
> We are not doing the perfect job as a whole group, and I do understand
> fixing these
> issues are all important, but I don't think going straight to the
> appeal process for abuse
> when there is only one coordinator is not the best way forward.
> 
> My suggestion is, use the past NomCom for this MAG selection, start discuss the
> Charter amendment right after the new coordinator is seated.
> 
> best,
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 2013/1/7 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
>> 
>> On Monday 07 January 2013 11:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 6 Jan 2013, at 22:24, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> Could you explain why an abuse.  You've been something of a master of
>>>> the caucus' charter, would be good to understand more before +1'ing or
>>>> not.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> the Nomcom process, included by reference as part of the charter says:
>>> 
>>>> Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be
>>>> disbanded after the decision is made.However, in special cases where several
>>>> different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened
>>>> time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the
>>>> co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several
>>>> functions.
>>> 
>>> The request for a Nomcom to fulfill several tasks is an a-prioir
>>> requirement, not something that can be done a-posteriori as in "oh my, we
>>> knew we needed to set up a nomcom but dod not get around to it, so lets just
>>> make the last nomcom do it"
>> 
>> 
>> I agree. and in addition there is also the need to meet the condition of
>> their being a 'shortened time frame' that does not allow for multiple
>> nomcoms to overrule the basic requirement that " Each nomcom will be
>> selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is
>> made." With many months gone since the nomcom did its work, this condition
>> is also not met.
>> 
>> I know that contextual flexibilities are often required but, Sala, you have
>> not explained to me why it takes much more time to get a new nomcom out or
>> an existing set of volunteers, with a 2 day opt out/ out in window...
>> 
>> The problem with arbitrariness, or taking the view that the earlier noncom
>> worked well (or even worse, produced good results), is that at some time it
>> can abused by those who for the wrong reason may want to continue with one
>> or the other nomcom. Therefore, as far as possible, it is best not to build
>> precedents that can be mis used in the future....
>> 
>> Also, Sala, I did not understand what is to be proposed to be included in
>> the vote for new co-coordinator with regard to the nomcom. Can you please
>> elaborate.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> We discussed  changing to the charter to make it possible to have a nomcom
>>> per year.  But we never got around to doing anything about it.  To do so now
>>> on the whim of a single coordinator is an abuse of power by the coordinator.
>>> 
>>> We knew that MAG nominations would be required at the beginning of the
>>> year, but we did nothing about it.
>>> 
>>> We have gotten into the habit of ignoring the charter and just doing
>>> things in an ad-hoc manner when all of a sudden we realize we are very late
>>> getting ourselves into gear.
>>> 
>>> This habit of ignoring the charter in favor of coordinator last minute
>>> urges is what I view as a charter abuse.  Deciding to reactivate a disbanded
>>> nomcom is an ad-hoc replacement of process.  Better we miss submitting names
>>> than that we bless this current regime of neglect by our coordinators with
>>> further last minute ad-hoc process.
>>> 
>>> If we keep it up this way, we will be ignoring our processes as much as
>>> ICANN has begun to ignore its processes.
>>> And that is no way to participate in the IGF.
>>> 
>>> In any case, that is what the Appeals team is for.  If 4 members of the
>>> IGC request a review, they get one.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> BTW, with the irregularities in the last election I am not sure whether I
>>> am a member or not.  Hence my request for 4 co-requestoers - just in case
>>> the powers that be decide to invalidate my request.  Another issues that was
>>> never dealt with by our co-coordinators.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
>>> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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