[governance] Re: The Appeals Team
Izumi AIZU
iza at anr.org
Tue Jan 8 03:27:59 EST 2013
Thanks Thomas for bringing this up and clear confirmation.
So our Appeals Team 2012 actually has terms for 1 year, till next July.
Sorry for overlooking that!!
izumi
2013/1/8 Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com>
> 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> <toml at communisphere.com> To: governance
> list IG Caucus <governance at lists.igcaucus.org><governance at lists.igcaucus.org> CC:
> Asif Kabani <kabani.asif at gmail.com> <kabani.asif at gmail.com>, Hakikur
> Rahman <email at hakik.org> <email at hakik.org>, Naveed haq
> <naveedpta at hotmail.com> <naveedpta at hotmail.com>, Shahid Akbar
> <shahid.akbar at biid.org.bd> <shahid.akbar at biid.org.bd>, Wilson Abigaba
> <abigabaw at gmail.com> <abigabaw at gmail.com>, Jeremy Malcolm
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> <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> <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> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130108/8354f5e0/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