[governance] Appeals Team - Call for Comments and Interim Findings

[parminder]

On Sunday 20 January 2013 09:58 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Unfortunately Parminder, the point you are making, however sophistically presented, is moot.
>
> In case you missed avri's point .. 4 people appeal and it is referred to an appeals committee, which, I sincerely hope, tends to consider the issue from a broader perspective than merely nitpicking on the bylaws of the IGC.
And perhaps you have missed the point that I have asked for nothing more 
from the appeals team - other than to take a fuller/ broader perspective 
with regard to the coordinator's decision to remove a member from the 
list, and not just go by technicalities (which are independently quite 
important)...

> Like, on the subject of the MAG, we have here, in my personal opinion, as pragmatic a solution as could be found in the short time possible..

Which would make it rather strange that you expressly supported Avri's 
assertion calling the setting up of the present nomcom process as an 
'abuse of process' and seconded her appeal for review of the decision.

parminder

>   and I hope we agree that this is an exceptional case, which we must be prepared to anticipate and prevent from recurring during the next time we are expected to select a MAG.
>
> Noteithstanding my above opinion, if four members of this caucus were to object to some aspect of this current process, yes it would go before the appeals committee.  Presumably the objection would have been voiced much earlier given the extensive discussion and, ultimately, a degree of consensus, that took place on this issue.
>
> In the case of removing members from the list, I won't comment further than to say that sufficient members apparently disagreed with the coordinator's decision, to trigger the appeals process, and the appeals team reached a decision to reinstate.
>
> Speaking for myself, I remain opposed to political maneuvring and anti Americanism largely substituting for actual Internet governance related discussion on this list, and hope that this situation changes sufficiently for productive discussions on actual igov issues to resume without continuing to be vitiated by individual agendas.
>   
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 20-Jan-2013, at 9:25, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 19 January 2013 10:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> On 19 Jan 2013, at 06:35, parminder wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> 2. However, I will caution the appeals team against summarily overturning a decision of a co-coordinator merely on technical grounds without making any comments whatsoever on the substantive issues involved. The problem is that there very often isnt a strict meeting of all the required provisions for so many activities of the IGC. For instance, even for the current Noncom process for selection of MAG nominees, it is an indisputable fact that all the laid down technical conditions for setting up the nomcom were not met. Does it mean that if 4 people were to appeal against the setting up of the nomcom, the decision to set up the nomcom, and its subsequent outputs will be struck down?
>>> Seems reasonable to me.
>> There is absolutely no doubt that at least some technical requirements of setting up the nomcom were not met. If nothing else, the one month time period and so on (whether there were attenuating circumstances or mere oversight or whatever, which factors should also be commented upon by any appeals committee)....
>>
>> So, are you saying that since such technical deficiencies are certainly there in the process of setting up the present nomcom, the appeals team should
>>
>> 1. strike down the decision of setting up the nomcom, and along with it
>> 2. all substantive outputs from the nomcom, whereby we will have to write to UNDESA withdrawing the list of IGC nominees for the MAG which the nomcom is expected to send today.
>>
>> I do not agree with doing this...
>>
>> Accordingly. I am seeking an equivalent procedure to be applied by the appeals committee in the case of the coordinator's decision of 'removal from list' of a member, whereby there is a separate judgement on the technicalities of the decision making process, and on its substantive output/ outcome, and how the two can possibly be reconciled.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>> They would then have to decide whether they thought that the Coordinator(s) had sufficient popular support for the change and that it had been properly discussed on the list.  They would have something to weigh it against.
>>>
>>> I think the technicalities are sufficient cause for an appeal and that they should prevail unless there is proof that some process intervened.  This case, any case of a coordinator going against the charter without proper list discussion before doing so, should be remedied.
>>>
>>>> 3. In the case of Suresh, technical conditions of 'removal from the list' may not have been met. But a point for the appeals committee to make a judgement on also is 'whether conditions of suspension from the list are met or not'. Because, in practical terms, if Suresh is to be reinstated within a month, the action of co-coordinator  has, till now, only amounted to his suspension from the list. It may not be right for the appeal committee to take too narrow a construction of the fact that the co-coordinator pronounced the decision of 'removal from the list', and simply judge it as wrong, doing nothing more. The committee needs to address, and judge, the context fully of the efforts of the co-coodinator to impose the necessary minimum decorum and orderliness on the elist in this particular case, and corresponding the conduct of the member against whom the 'removal' decision was given.
>>> Certainly, but only in the case that the community of the IGC was included.
>>>
>>>> 4. Accordingly, if on substance, and not merely on technical grounds, the disciplining efforts of the co-coordinator are found appropriate, the merit of the intent of her decision may still be salvaged by turning the 'removal' decision to 'suspension' decision, whereby Suresh is immediately put back on the list.
>>> I disagree.  I support the appeals team using extenuating circumstance and list discussion to go beyond the charter.  I do not accept them substituting their views on the substance for the charter.
>>>
>>>> parminder
>>> avri
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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



-------------- 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