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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] website email



At 05:05 -0400 2002/09/03, Joanna Lane wrote:
>There is nothing transparent about Panel members receiving offlist replies.
>What is transparent is replies posted to a list that is publicly archived,

Although I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, I sincerely hope we will keep in mind that this does not mean all correspondence amongst members must be conducted on a public list. We'd all be very much better off if private criticism of individuals were *not* a prominent feature of our open discussion ... but that, of course, depends on the discretion of individuals.

>which Joop is refusing to set up, because he would rather receive payment
>for his Polling Booth instead, which he personally owns, hence he is making
>it as difficult as possible to conduct this ballot another way.

Now, that's an issue which concerns me *very* much, and I'd love to get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. The official deliberations of the Panel should (must!) be public, and no one person -- however well-intentioned he might be -- can be allowed to prevent the setting up of such a list. If for some reason Joop refuses to do it, either he must resign from the post of webmaster for reasons of principle or the Panel must ask the membership for a mandate to remove him and/or set up the list themselves.

>Refusing to release the membership list is all part of the same problem,
>because it means a separate list to receive the ballot papers cannot be set
>up independently without his prior agreement and to go further, he is
>refusing to accept the authority of the Panel, not least by insisting the
>ICANNAtLarge.com domain remains on the ballot paper.

This confuses me. 

I tend to agree with Joop in this respect: the watchdogs for elections should not be Panel members or candidates -- they *must* be trusted individuals without a personal stake in the outcome of elections. That is normally specified in bylaws or electoral laws of democracies, and for good reason.

I tend to agree with Joanna that a webmaster's personal preferences cannot be allowed to override a collective decision to elect the Interim Panel and empower them to transact the necessary business of this organization-in-formation. Their authority, derived from their constituents, is clear in this respect. There will never be a genuine organization with genuine elected officers and directors unless they are allowed to fulfil their mandate, which includes the calling of elections and the preparation of suitable ballots.

On the other hand, since what we are at the moment (until we vote on a final name for the organization) is a group of people registered as members at "ICANNatlarge.com", I don't really understand what would be gained by not mentioning the name on the ballot. Frankly, I doubt many people would vote for that as the organization's name since it obviously makes no sense for a non-profit organization to call itself a ".com". 

We seem to be quite divided on whether a domain extension should be part of the organization's name at all. Those in favour seem to think it would be some kind of PR advantage and those against may think it a disadvantage since it makes us look like a Web site rather than a real organization whose members exist as human beings rather than cyberidentities.

>Now what I want to know is why you would defend a webmaster who is holding
>this organization to ransom while insulting the Chair who is fighting to >get this cancer cut out.

It might be more helpful to define the problem in neutral terms. 

1. Does Joop actually own "ICANNatlarge.com" himself? 
-  If so, we can't force him to do anything in particular with it unless we're planning to avail ourselves of the trademark protection against cybersquatters. What we could do is move elsewhere, and make sure we spread the word to the wider community that this group now operates from that other site and is no longer affiliated with this one.
-  If not, there must be a way to obtain access and change the administrative password so that somebody else (preferably several individuals forming a committee) can be designated to look after the site.

2. Does the Panel's authority include the making of operational decisions about when and how members get to vote on things like the name of the organization and how we'd like to handle the process leading up to incorporation?
-  If so, then they must be allowed to get on with it but they must report to the membership on what they're doing and how and why so we all know what's going on and don't work at cross-purposes.
-  If not, then we need to spell out what we did mandate the Panel to do and what amongst their activities must be put to a vote of the whole membership before it is done.

>I believe very strongly that nobody is indispensable to this organization,
>so any member who attempts to claim control over one aspect or another, as
>the webmaster is now doing, is not going to be my best friend. Sorry, but
>I'm not here for a popularity contest. I am upholding the principals in
>which I believe and if you and the rest of the panel do not support me on
>issues such as this one, you can have my resignation, because unlike Joop, >I am happy to be replaceable.

Even amongst best friends, there will likely be friction and misunderstandings unless everyone is on the same page about who does what.
No organization worth its salt can operate on personalities rather than principles. The principles of this organization-in-formation are defined as including democracy, transparency, and responsibility to the broader community of Internet users.

I'm not comfortable taking sides between individuals, especially when those individuals are both volunteers working for a cause I believe in. That being said, I'm also very UNcomfortable with the notion that any one person, elected or otherwise, could assume he or she was irreplaceable -- no organization can function well if it risks collapse if one person leaves or gets hit by a truck. 

That's presumably why we elected a full Panel rather than just one person, and why we have a Web working-group rather than leave everything to the webmaster. In the absence of our yet-to-be-written bylaws, may I ask if we have a consensus on the following?

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

RESOLVED THAT the Panel be authorized to transfer webmastering authority for the ICANNatlarge.com Web site to the Web Working Group as a whole, and that said working group be empowered to set up such mailing lists, forums and Web pages as may be needed on receipt of a Panel resolution to that effect.

___ Yes       ___ No          ___ Abstain


Member Name:

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

By-the-by, if our membership registration database includes some kind of record-number field, could we not authenticate votes with it? It would mean e-mailing each member their own number but then presumably would make it possible to check off votes as they come in and ensure nobody votes twice or with a spurious membership number. Just an idea for our present interim use, not a reliable way of doing it for later elections...

Regards,

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################



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