[bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net

[McTim]

Dear Daniel and Parminder,


We DO vote in the IGC, just not on decisions like these.

We vote in elections and for Charter Amenments.

For Statements, we try to reach consensus:

Please re-read the IGC Charter:  http://igcaucus.org/charter

"Decisions

The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible.
When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be
jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the
purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming
majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any
dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected.
Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been
made to accommodate minority points of view.
When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough
consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the
consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty
eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of
the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the
appeals team.
Statements and representation at meetings
Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be
discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision
procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be
occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and
will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that require
a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still required that
the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as
soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary:
The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the
caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot
be discussed by the caucus within the time available.
In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with
the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect
the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of
those members who are physically present at the meeting.
If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in
face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another
participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be
made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus.
Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and
coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate.
Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic
principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular.
Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed
general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and
documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the caucus
in the past.
Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible,
preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as
soon after their presentation as possible."



On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
> I just want others to tell their clear views as well....
>
> ...
>
> PS: Marking to IGC, where I would like this issue to be put to vote.
>
>
> My view (hard to say my "clear" view in the middle of confusion) is that
> when, in a civil society virtual context:
> - the number of parallel lists is blooming
> - more than 80% of the time is invested in who shall speak on our behalf
> rather than what is our common position
> - the selection processes lack some level of definition
> - ad-hominem perceptions are (objectively or subjectively) in the increase
> - there is emptyness in some constitutional slots in our process and no
> scheduled replacement
> - and the agenda stakes are high and close...
>
> it is indeed time to use voting (or surveying) as a way to understand where
> the group stand and from there get organized.
>
> The challenge would remain on deciding the matters to be voted (surveyed)
> but I hope the quality of people around should be a
> warrant for consensus on those matters.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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