[governance] The Appeals Team

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Tue Jan 8 01:14:52 EST 2013 

+1 Appeal

We need an official and focused group to opine on this issue. I believe 
the current Appeal Team is that entity.

Tom Lowenhaupt


On 1/8/2013 1:07 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
> 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/20130108/2f00d154/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