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

Tue Jan 8 00:11:25 EST 2013

2013/1/7 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> 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 do understand that every member has the right to appeal.
I am not denying that at all.

But for this case, my personal opinion is that Sala's
proposal of using the existing NomCom for MAG nomination
is not a real "abuse". Given the situation, it is a practical option
as some others already endorsed.
I think we better focus on more productive and pragmatic or important issues
now. I mean, reviewing the Charter is of course important, but can't
we do so after
we settle MAG selection thing?

>
> 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.

If so, why not also NomCom?  These are sort of "grey" areas that
current Charter does not specifically address.

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

I have two year terms, coordinator election should be done mid-summer
or soon after according to Charter.

I did not write "stepped down" though I have made clear my intention
to step down
earlier in November, and Call for new coordinator was already made.

So, legally I might still be a coordinator until new one replaces me,
but I thought it
proper not to take any active action or role, being a lame duck and
outgoing shortly.
That's why I wrote "retired. I hope you could understand this and read
between the
lines.

izumi

>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

-------------- 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