[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Rules on Election of Chair
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
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, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.