[governance] Re: The Appeals Team
Kabani
kabani.asif at gmail.com
Tue Jan 8 06:46:07 EST 2013
Agree with Tom
He has shared the details agreed by NomCom on July 24, 2012.
Pl, let move forward :)
Regards
On 8 January 2013 13:27, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
*Connect me*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
[image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>
*Wait Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130108/8881d93b/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