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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Chair



Here are some practical issues concerning the panel chair. When the last panel was elected, there was a lot of talk going a lot of different directions, and not much in the way of decisions. Then we elected VB, who was really the only candidate for chair. VB got off to a nice start, and held a few votes, which required framing the issues and sending out a ballots. From this we made some decisions setting up the discuss and panel lists and a few other things. The, for probably a number of reasons, including Esther and Denise's launch of at-large.org (the non-democratic ICANN at-large effort), the ERC reports, etc..... the Chair lost interest, and next to nothing got done. We never even had a final formal vote on getting the web page keys, as Joop pointed out, and we never got the call for a webmaster out the door. It took a lot of pressure just to allow the members to organize this election. So, when the chair is engaged and able to frame issues and make sure decisions are made, it has some real benefits. When the chair is not functioning, it is very hard to do anything.

Next, suppose you want outreach. Suppose you want to comment on some ICANN stuff. Well, it is helpful if you have someone what can be the voice for this. It could be anyone in the organization that is picked to do it..... I certainly think it is a plus if the chair is trusted to do this.....and a mess if the chair isn't trusted to do this. But on any given issue, it might be someone else....

The reality is that icannatlarge.com has no power, and no powerful people want it to have power, and it has a lot of basic work to be done that requires a lot of decisions. Adopting a charter, Incorporating, opening a bank account, raising money, figuring out how to run elections, verifying members, etc. None of this stuff gets done if you can't make decisions (and lots of them). People elect chairs to faciliate efficient decision making. The NCC does not have a chair. It is basically disfunctional.

With regular elections, you can "throw the bums out" if you don't like what they do. This makes the members the real decision makers. Because power comes from the membership, the panel cares what the membership says. This is a postive thing.

The panel will elect a chair. Otherwise it will do nothing. But these debates are useful, IMO, because they are getting to substantive issues..... what is icannatlarage.com, and what is it ready to do? Some want it to only create a charter. Others (myself included), see some other tasks which it should do, assuming it has the support of the elected panel (which is influenced by the discuss feedback, and the fact that new elections are always around the corner). When we present the charter to the membership (if we actually get that done) we can have a good debate over the role of the chair and the method of selecting the chair.

Jamie


Gary Osbourne wrote:
At 10:39 PM 06/08/02 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

...and just where is it written that the panel has to
elect a chair?  And, if so, why should the panel and not
the membership be the group that does the electing?  Who
approved these indirect elections?

I don't think it is unreasonable to have a position of
Chair, and I don't think it is unreasonable to have the
panel choose its own Chair. The position is Chair of the
Panel, not the at-large. I don't see that Chair position
as properly a spokesperson position for the at-large or
other potential mission creep. If the at-large Panel
decides on a public statement, hopefully with visible
support from other members, perhaps someone, and someone
other than Chair, perhaps even a non-Panel member, could
be designated Press Liaison. One doesn't want to see too
much power concentrated in one position.

The Chair position can, and I submit should, be the role
of a panel facilitator, someone to move discussion along.
Someone to act in the role of servant, not master. Someone
who may not even want the position but takes it on as a
duty, a task to be undertaken and performed, not as a
leadership position of a diverse group. If the latter is
the case, and deemed necessary, open elections for such
a position to all the membership.

Rather than the peak of a pyramid for all tasks the Chair
should be seen as the center of a star for certain tasks.
Someone with strongly held majority (or minority) views on
numerous issues might not be the best person to occupy this
position. I have no particular person in mind when I make
that statement. I'm just making the observation that the
Panel and membership should cast a wary eye on anyone
overly covetous of such a position.

I would also suggest that the Chair position be non-voting,
perhaps even in the event of an otherwise tied vote, and
if it isn't clear who might be the best person to occupy
it, and/or to keep it from becoming a center of power, and/or
a source of friction, one could rotate the position amongst
Panel members, perhaps monthly, preferably via some near-
random process less open to abuse, such as alphabetically.

After all, if it is just a task which needs doing, why not
share it? My comments would also hold true for an Alt Chair
position. If you're going to have a Chair, you might as well
have an Alt Chair for backup.

Just some thoughts from a non-member, though given the mostly
high quality (I don't know some of them) of the elected Panel,
I'm now considering joining :) -g


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