Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Thomas Roessler proposes elimination of current voting system for GA

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 09:09 a.m. 31/05/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2002-05-31 12:40:54 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>>>After all, the very construction principle of an at-large membership is 
>>>to form a group of individuals - with no further structure.
>
>>I do not know who told you that, but it certainly is not my idea to leave 
>>the At Large without any further structure. Without structure, there 
>>cannot be any establishing of the majority's will.  There can be no 
>>resolutions, no decisionmaking.
>
>You are misunderstanding me (and, actually, your interpretation of
>this one sentence contradicts the rest of what I said - that should
>have given you something to think about).

Sorry, but misunderstandings on mailing lists come easy. Too much to read 
and too little time to think.  I am often misunderstood myself and as long 
as there is no malice, no harm is done. :-)
Fortunately it takes only one posting to correct a misunderstanding, but 
malice takes hundreds of postings, poisoning a list in the process.


>  I'm not saying that an at-large membership should not set up processes 
> and administrative structures.

I'm relieved.  Your further input on  structures and processes is most welcome.


>That is, an at-large membership initiative is a homogeneous body,
>and it makes sense to say that this group of individuals has come to this 
>or that decision, on substance.  (Possibly, the homogeneous
>bodies are broken down to country levels at some point of time; so
>would votes in this time - but that's it, I suppose.)

The 5 proposed ICANN regions  (or the 6 proposed by the ALSC)  are 
arbitrary and perhaps even unnecessary. Cities, where members can easily 
get together in physical meetings might be more appropriate as 
organizational units, as long as the one-person-one vote principle is 
maintained.

>If you look at my message to the GA list, that's precisely the test
>I suggested in order to answer the question whether secret votes are the 
>appropriate tool: A homogeneous body, making decisions.
>
>
>I believe that the GA does not pass this test (after all, the DNSO
>_is_ organized by constituencies, as a matter of fact).
>
>
>To put it into friendly, capital letters: FOR THE GA, SECRET VOTES
>DON'T MAKE SENSE.  FOR AN AT-LARGE MEMERSHIP THEY PROBABLY ARE THE
>APPROPRIATE TOOL.  BUT THAT'S NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE.

And it is another discussion. I am firmly on the side of secret ballots for 
the At Large.

(For the GA, I don't believe for a moment that the votes *are* secret :-) , 
but 's let's not discuss GA matters here) 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de