WG-CC Archives

Coalition WG on Coordination Committee

WG-CC@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Toby Mendel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Coalition WG on Coordination Committee <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:11:07 -0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
Hi all,

A few comments:

1) Under 5), we say that the private sector is excluded (in addition to
excluding the profit-making sector). In many countries, NGOs are
considered to be part of the private sector. I think it is enough to
exclude the profit-making sector.

2) Re. 7(7), I think it will be more practical if the CC can approve its
own rules (otherwise, it would need to wait until a Membership meeting to
change them and this will also divert the energies of the Membership
meeting which has more important things to discuss). Also, I think it is
important to stipulate quorum for these meetings in the constitutive
document (I think you will find this is common practice). This can easily
be done by adding that quorum for meetings is 7 members in 6(c)(5).

3) I fully agree with the comments on the 2-year renewal idea. This is not
practical both because we might wish to introduce changes before then and
because we don't want to go through this whole process again in just two
years.

4) Re. the upper limit on CC members, I think we all very much appreciate
the effort and support of TI in the Coalition. That is not the point. The
point, as far as I am concerned, is that if we want to have a democratic
entity, we need to limit the amount of power that one member and its
affiliates can control. In my view, control over the secretariat and the
potential to have 33% of the Coordinating Committee is too much. Hence my
suggestion to limit the CC participation to a maximum of three members.

5) The issue of individual members is difficult. In the end, however, I
agree with Gillian that we cannot equate organisations with individuals,
as (simplistically) satisfying as it may be to say one member one vote.
But I also agree that we cannot exclude individuals. The solution of
having a separate individuals vote for their member of the CC seems a
reasonable compromise to me.

Toby


___________________________________
Toby Mendel

Centre for Law and Democracy
[log in to unmask]
Tel:  +1 902 431-3688
Fax: +1 902 431-3689

             ***********************************************
The WG-CC mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

To unsubscribe from the WG-CC list, click the following link:
http://community.lsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-LSOFTDONATIONS.EXE?SUBED1=WG-CC&A=1
or mailto: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2