[discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity

Sun Jan 19 03:39:53 UTC 2014

A related question.  Michael, about the community informatics group, is this the archive of the group's mailing list <http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers>? 

Thanks,

Adam

On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> > I hope that this answers your questions.
> >
> 
> It does answer the question I asled.
> Thank you.
> 
> So, I conclude that
> 
> a. /1net has already given you the pre-disposition you should expect with the list of nominees you just submitted an appeal on.  As you know I am among those who think the /1net leadership, pre-SC and now the /1net-sc, do have the responsibility for dealing with your appeal.  But the prior notice that they were only going to accept nomination from certain sources was probably a clue as to how they would react to a slate presented directly to them once they gave it appropriate consideration.
> 
> b. the names were not submitted to any other process.
> 
> While other processes may not have sent the request for nominees far and wide, a statement that i think needs to be proven yet, I wonder did you and the other Ig experienced people mentoring the CI through this process know about the opportunities for getting CI members into the mix while there was still time.
> 
> Thanks again for your reply.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 18-Jan-14 16:14, michael gurstein wrote:
>> CI submitted its nominations to the br.cgi folks who told us to submit these
>> to 1net.
>> 
>> We submitted these nominations to 1net and were told that they were only
>> accepting nominations that were forwarded through CS: CC and GigaNet.
>> 
>> Our approach to CS: CC concerning involvement with their processes including
>> nominations was rebuffed. No request for nominations was circulated outside
>> of the 4 organizations which constitute the CS: CC.
>> 
>> The GigaNet process was evidently exclusive to GigaNet as no information or
>> request for nominations was, to my knowledge circulated outside of the
>> closed GigaNet list.
>> 
>> I hope that this answers your questions.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
>> Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:49 PM
>> To: discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative
>> Multistakeholder model validity
>> 
>> (all cc dropped)
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have one question on all of this, did CI present its candidate list to any
>> other processes?  I have noticed in these processes that various people and
>> groups submitted the same names to different processes.  So even if CI was
>> holding out for either doing it own thing to establish its footprint in the
>> /1net movement or for the invitation it did not get to be on the joint CS
>> selection process, did they make sure, given the uncertainty of their
>> appeals, that their candidates were also considered by Academia and the  CS4
>> processes?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 18-Jan-14 14 @gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for
>>> everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have
>>> those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder
>>> and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged.
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss