[governance] The Appeals Team

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Tue Jan 8 01:07:36 EST 2013 

IGC List,

My records indicate the current members of the Civil Society Internet 
Governance Caucus Appeals Team are:

  * *Ginger Paque*
  * *Ian Peter*
  * *Roland Perry*
  * *Shaila Rao Mistry*
  * *Deirdre Williams*

They were appointed by the NomCom on July 24, 2012. The appointment was 
for one year beginning on July 24, 2012. (See copy of the NomCom report 
below.)

Sincerely,

Thomas Lowenhaupt, Chair (non-voting)
2012 Appeals Team Nominating Committee

P.S. The

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

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	The Nominating Committee's Appeals Team Selection Report
Date: 	Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:31:00 -0400
From: 	Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com> 
<mailto:toml at communisphere.com>
To: 	governance list IG Caucus <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
CC: 	Asif Kabani <kabani.asif at gmail.com> <mailto:kabani.asif at gmail.com>, 
Hakikur Rahman <email at hakik.org> <mailto:email at hakik.org>, Naveed haq 
<naveedpta at hotmail.com> <mailto:naveedpta at hotmail.com>, Shahid Akbar 
<shahid.akbar at biid.org.bd> <mailto:shahid.akbar at biid.org.bd>, Wilson 
Abigaba <abigabaw at gmail.com> <mailto:abigabaw at gmail.com>, Jeremy Malcolm 
<Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>



Fellow Member of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus,

The Appeals Team Nominating Committee is delighted to announce that the 
selection process for the Appeals Team has been successfully completed 
with the following 5 nominees receiving a majority vote from the NomCom 
members:

  * *Ginger Paque*
  * *Ian Peter*
  * *Roland Perry*
  * *Shaila Rao Mistry*
  * *Deirdre Williams*

The NomCom effort began in May and included several outreach emails to 
the IGC list detailing the need and process for selecting an Appeals 
Team. As a result of this outreach effort the NomCom received 11 
nominees. The Committee them confirmed with the nominees their 
willingness to serve. All responded positively. The 11 nominees 
confirming their willingness to serve were:

  * Ginger Paque
  * Gurumurthy Kasinathan
  * Ian Peter
  * Imran Ahmed Shah
  * Judy Okite
  * Michael Gurstein
  * Raquel Gatto
  * Roland Perry
  * Shaila Rao Mistry
  * Vincent Solomon Aliama
  * Deirdre Williams

The NomCom would like to thank the nominees for stepping forward and 
enabling a robust review process.

We also offer our thanks to Jeremy Malcolm who, having served as chair 
of a previous NomCom, stood by ready to provide any needed support to 
this committee.

And we especially wish the 5 selected for the Appeals Team wisdom should 
their judgement be required during the term of service.

Sincerely,

The Appeals Team Nominating Committee,

Asif Kabani
Hakikur Rahman
Naveed haq
Shahid Akbar
Wilson Abigaba
Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair)







On 1/8/2013 12:11 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130108/548b3cdf/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