Re: [atlarge-discuss] Rules on Election of Chair

[**star*walker** <starwalker@swva.net>]

Wednesday, August 07, 2002 * 10:26 AM EDT USA

As a lifelong public and private political activist I will hazard an 
educated guess that the instant problem is with the word "Chair." It is 
customary use has implications for most of us (including the newly elected) 
far beyond convening-facilitating-coordinating.

Speaking solely for myself, as I have grown closer toward wisdom and 
further away from my own ego, power, and control needs to thoroughly 
appreciate and enjoy simply being a "convener/facilitator" in all 
activities save where "the law" obliges titles. And even in those cases, I 
cannot take the titles seriously though I have had my share. They are 
merely burdens, whereas convening and facilitating are joys.

Regarding both the panels and the atlargdot.com membership's needs in the 
current discussion I offer the following:

1. All discussion, debate and decisions must be made in full view of the 
membership, with members having the opportunity to express their input.

2. I urge the panel members to decide on a convener-facilitator for a 
period of one month, during which time they can go about getting to know 
each other better and decide how they'd like to proceed as to their 
leadership needs for the balance of their terms. They would then implement 
their decisions beginning with the second month.

During that time they can decide on "title(s)," term(s) and panel 
responsibilities-powers. By the middle of the first month each ought be 
able to be candid enough to express their interest in serving in particular 
capacities and why the other panel members ought to want them to serve in 
those capacities.

All this must proceed with good will, good faith and respect, without which 
nothing will be possible that will be any better than what already exists 
in abundance elsewhere. Phrases such as "I think," "I feel" and "I would" 
ought to be operant to the exclusion of "You think," "You feel" and "You would"

3. Given the panel's term and purposes, I strongly urge the panel to adopt 
convener as title in place of "chair," and a rotation among those panelists 
interested. My reasons:

The best I can politically characterize the panel in my understanding to 
date is a "committee of the whole," a committee of equals. The use of 
"chair" unavoidably sets one above the remainder, with no external 
political gain even to be considered.

Secondly, I hope ALL panelists are interested in the long term, as I've 
come to appreciate that Vittorio has demonstrated. I look at the next 
twelve months as an internship, "training" and demonstration period. By the 
conclusion of that time the manner in which panelists have acquitted 
themselves will amount to recommendations for their future election within 
a formal structure.

While quality of service during rotation as convener will not be a sole 
determinant of a panelist's future (only an indicator as I see it), at the 
same time rotating the convener prevents anyone panelist from claiming the 
"benefits" of incumbency, something I think Vittorio came to expect, 
perhaps rightly, certainly understandably.

Regards to everyone... /s/ Joe Bordo

At 08:47 AM 8/7/2002, eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> This is getting muddled, are we sure on a few issues?
> 1.    It is a PANEL chair, not a chair of our whole membership.
> 2.    Our panel was elected for INTERNAL work only.
> 3.    If we chose to elect external representatives, "diplomats" "consulars"
> "Ambassadors"  that will be a separate vote.
> 4.    None of the above is meant to restrict outreach, but rather negotiations
> and politics with ICANN.