[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections



Jamie Love wrote:

>ICANN itself will not tolerate an at large election process.

Sadly, you're most likely correct.  But it never hurts to give them another
opportunity to fail!

>Some members of the panel are willing to endorse this as progress,

I wouldn't call it progress at this point.  As I've said before, I judge
based on actions, not rhetoric.  It's too early to tell whether this is yet
another useless process like the ALSC to keep everyone spinninmg their
wheels, or whether it might eventually lead to something good for the At
Large.  If ICANN shocks us and the latter event occurs, *then* I'll endorse
it as progress.

>others may feel it a cynical and manipulative effort to undermine the
legitamcy of elections,

I don't discout this as a possibility either.  But again, it's too early to
tell.

>and they may want to build up a system for elections, and push to be
recognized in some way.

As I've said before, reaching out to participate in the ALAC process doesn't
mean we shouldn't continue full speed ahead on our self-organizing schedule!
Nor does it mean that we should have a relationship with ICANN to the
exclusion of all other entities.

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
Bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!


-----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:05 AM
To: Izumi AIZU
Cc: atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de; discuss
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections


ICANN itself will not tolerate an at large election process.

Jamie



Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong. I don't know out of 6 members remaining on the
> panel
> who is endorsing the elimination of elections.
>
> I suggested after your resignation to achieve both, bylaws preparation AND
> election by the original deadline of July 24. There was a discussion yes
> here to consider the extension of deadline into before Shanghai, but that
> was not agreed by anyone.
>
> In fact Vittorio Wolfgang and myself discussed this lunch time to
> proceed the election and bylaws mandate be done by the original
> deadline and that is why I think it is better to ask YJ to join
> the interim panel unless Jamie comes back to work together
> which is more than welcome.
>
> So, please Jamie, do not vend the fact but make it straight
> to achieve common goal. But I think we need more resources to
> make a successful election, rather than criticizing each other on
> the list.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> At 10:31 02/06/27 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>   Given the fact that some members of the current "temporary" board are
> now endorsing the elimination of elections, and will be going to
> Shanghi, I think it is important to test their support in an election.
>
>>    Jamie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>



--
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040



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


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