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

Fri Jan 18 12:36:05 EST 2013

It would be very good if, in this discussion, the various parties would make
some effort to clearly differentiate their contribution from those that have
gone before. >>>There are various ways of doing this as you know.<<< 

(I believe that many people, including myself, read their mail in some type
of ASCII format which means that reformatting including through using
italics or alternative character sets does not come through and some other
procedure is required. In the absence of attention being paid to this, the
result is highly confusing including especially in attributing comments to
one or another party.

Tks,

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 5:47 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Preliminary List of Nominees for the 2013 MAG -
REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

Hi Parminder

On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, parminder <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> 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/a1f09cbf/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