[governance] Preliminary List of Nominees for the 2013 MAG - REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

Fri Jan 18 12:09:18 EST 2013

Bill

You are wrong on many counts.

<I don't follow the logic that makes it odd for me to note that the UN 
says it doesn't want this.  > (Bill)

One, UN DESA has clearly asked for existing members to be renominated. I 
dont know why you keep insisting they havent. It is in the UNDESA call 
for nomination from which I had quoted earlier, and I cant keep 
re-quoting it.

Second, it has been a tradition to re-certify extant members and so 
there is no "unilaterally pronouncing at the 11th hour" of anything as 
you allege. Quoting from the email by Chair of the last nomcom that 
nominated MAG nominees (email by Jacqueline Morris of Jan 10, 2012...

    "Current MAG members are encouraged to re-apply, but in the
    interests of diversity, we would like to limit to those who have
    already served 2 consecutive terms."

    and

    "Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how
    they carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in
    advocating and pushing IGC’s positions as well as the larger CS
    positions. We would also like to hear what they have contributed,
    what they intend to contribute and why they want to continue in the
    role. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the
    wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. "

<..... rather throw it out there a couple days before the nomcom is 
supposed to deliver?  Or for that matter, years ago, like when you were 
on the MAG?> (Bill)

Thirdly, I was never on the MAG, and never nominated by IGC, and so 
there was no question of renomination. I was a Special Advisor to the 
MAG Chair picked directly by the chair and in position at his pleasure.

Perhaps you can get your basic facts right before making your arguments 
rather than accusing the other to be too hard an interrogator...

parminder

On Friday 18 January 2013 07:16 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Bill
>>
>> On Thursday 17 January 2013 03:10 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder
>>>
>>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:21 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In either scenario, I would think Adam's solution is a sensible 
>>>>> way to get this done promptly and focus the noncom's effort on 
>>>>> what really needs doing.
>>>>
>>>> I do however find it rather odd that an existing IGC nominated MAG 
>>>> member should insist that either the matter of recertifying  not be 
>>>> taken up at all, or that noncom simple issues a blanket endorsement 
>>>> without at all going into the merit of the case, that too without 
>>>> appending any disclaimer :).
>>>
>>> And I find it rather odd that you would make this claim when a) in 
>>> the very next sentence of my message I refer to discussions we are 
>>> having in the MAG;
>>
>> I did not understand. What do any discussions in the MAG have to do 
>> with my request that all existing members also be considered for 
>> renomination? (By the way, what discussions are you having in the MAG?)
>
> Sorry, you had two accusations in one sentence and I was responding to 
> the second, that it was somehow suspect that I didn't append a 
> disclaimer saying that I'm on the MAG.  So I noted this was clear from 
> the rest of the message etc.
>>
>>> b) in another message sent to you and the list seven minutes later I 
>>> ask you what you thought was controversial about our informal MAG 
>>> meeting in Baku
>>
>> I will related my views on this in rather details very soon.. watch 
>> this space :)
>
> We await with bated breath :-)
>
>>> and note that we on the MAG have sort of deferred to Izumi's 
>>> reporting but could do something else if people wanted;
>>
>> That is very fine.. I have no problem with it. Generally I do seek 
>> better and closer interactions. Many have said the same thing about 
>> out MAG reps over the years on the IGC list...
>>
>>> and c) the composition of the MAG CS contingent has been discussed 
>>> in the thread and is hardly a secret.
>>
>> Yes, everyone knows it. That still makes it odd for an extant member 
>> to repeated assert that extant members should not recertified.
>
> I don't follow the logic that makes it odd for me to note that the UN 
> says it doesn't want this.
>>
>>>   I also find it ironic given the high standards of disclosure 
>>> demonstrated when you were telling the IGC to support the Indian 
>>> government's CIRP proposal without mentioning your role in it, and 
>>> so on. :-)
>>>
>>> Games aside, I remain curious about your insistence the nomcom spend 
>>> time on an extra procedure that the Secretariat has made clear is 
>>> unnecessary,
>>
>> Secretariat seems to think so... but not the real decision maker - 
>> the UNDESA. right!
>
> You have some interesting ideas of how all this works.  You know what 
> DESA wants and the secretariat doesn't.
>>
>>> particularly when the discussion here was about the tight time frame 
>>> and urgent need to complete the process.
>>
>> It should take a few minutes only. I expect everyone to be 
>> renominated, maybe with a short discussion about some being more 
>> interactive than others, but maybe the nomcom will also observe that 
>> they expect/ request continued or greater interaction with IGC... 
>> That is all.
>>
>>>   What purpose would it serve?
>>
>> The biggest purposes of all - accountability.... Why are so giving it 
>> such a short shrift.
>
> So you've decided that unless each extant MAG member is re-examined 
> and recertified there's no accountability?  Then why didn't you 
> propose this long ago so the caucus could have a rational discussion 
> of the idea and come to some consensus, rather throw it out there a 
> couple days before the nomcom is supposed to deliver?  Or for that 
> matter, years ago, like when you were on the MAG?
>>
>>>  I don't really care much either way and would of course roll with 
>>> whatever IGC members have consensus on, but it seems like silly 
>>> bureaucracy to me.
>>
>> For a nominating group to reassess an earlier nominated candidate is 
>> 'silly bureaucracy' for you ! That surprises me. I really dont where 
>> are you coming from.
>
> I was trying to help Thomas and the nomcom do their thing by asking 
> the Secretariat what they wanted.  I relayed what I was told, and now 
> here I am being grilled by police interrogator Parminder (I admit, you 
> must have been good!).  I can handle a round or two of this if we can 
> dispense with insinuations about missing disclaimers etc.
>>
>> Would it look rather less silly if at some time an IGC nomcom 
>> conspicuously refused to renominate an extant MAG member, while 
>> renominating all others, because it were a widely held belief that, 
>> since the earleir nomination, the concerned member had clearly 
>> conducted him/her-self in a manner that maked him/her not worthy of 
>> an IGC nomination. Is such a situation in your view entirely 
>> inconceivable?
>>
>> There are countries that have right-to-recall provisions. India has 
>> them now in some local bodies. And you are against a re-assessment 
>> even when there is clearly a fresh appointment involved.
>
> Ok so now I understand.  I thought we were trying to help the caucus 
> solve the subject line---Preliminary List of Nominees for the 2013 MAG 
> - REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION---and so pointed out we don't need to 
> invent new steps nobody is asking us to take.  But your purpose is not 
> the short-term, getting it done, but rather the long term, 
> establishing rules for the IGC, including the option to recall MAG 
> members based on some sort of interrogation of their performance.  So 
> the search for something in the universe to regulate continues.  Fair 
> enough, I trust you regard this as fair minded institution building 
> and will ignore the personalized accusatory way you started.  So if 
> caucus members think this is important, want to discuss the pros and 
> cons, and come to a consensus on a course of action—whether formalized 
> in the charter nomcom bits or more informally—great, I'm sure all MAG 
> members will happily comply.  But that means a collective decision, 
> not you unilaterally pronouncing at the 11th hour.
>>
>>>  [Disclaimer: I am on the MAG, nominated by IGC and APC]
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Bill
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130118/6427ff32/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