RE: [atlarge-discuss] Democratic process (was Re: [atlarge-discuss]encouragement)

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Jamie Love wrote:

> Look, forgive me for not knowing what is going on.  Has the election been
> "cancelled" by someone?

Nobody asked to cancel the vote. The suggestion from the Watchdogs was only
to invalidate one choice from the ballot and to allow extra time for those
who voted for the invalid choice to revote.

Is this discribed on our web page for
> our members
> to follow what is going on?

No. Whose job do you think it is?

Judyth wrote:
> > In one off-list message, I was taken to task for suggesting
> that Joanna had been injudicious in wanting to partly-cancel
> balloting already in progress, thereby partly disenfranchising
> those who had already cast their votes.

You are mistaken. Nobody would have been disenfranchised by the Watchdog's
proposed solution. This was a way to remove an impediment to progress by
invalidating a choice of name about which we had received legal advice that
indicated a serious problem may exist. The members were to be advised of an
extension to the voting period, thereby allowing sufficient time for those
who had already voted to revote. Multiple ballots are in any case accepted,
with the last vote being the one counted, so the only change to published
procedures was to be the extension of the closing date. This decision by the
Watchdogs was not without precedent. The procedure was established by
ICANN's DNSO Watchdogs a while ago, approved and executed by the Names
Council in a comparable situation. In that case it was an election using
instant run-off votes in which one candidate (Jonathan Weinberg if memory
serves me correctly) withdrew after voting had already commenced. Rather
than cancel the vote altogether, or risk a result in which the withdrawn
candidate was elected, the solution I suggested here was deemed the least
impediment to progress and therefore in the best interests of the membership
as a whole. However, in this case, the Panel did not give the Watchdogs any
formal response to approve or disapprove their recommended course of action,
which is why we now have some confusion as to what is happening.

> >>My position is simple: if we do not conduct our own affairs
> properly and democratically, there is no legitimate reason for us
> to exist. We will have no credibility with the organizations we
> are hoping to influence and no chance of attracting anyone but
> the most inexperienced and naive Internet users to participate in
> the effort.

I couldn't agree more, and as Chair, my job is to remove impediments to
progress. On the road to choosing the organization's name, I was trying to
steer this group towards the expressway and away from the ICANN toll bridge.
The reverse gives ICANN the upper hand and removes this groups autonomy.
That may have been an error of judgment on my part, I don't know, but I
start to scratch my head when I see arguments about how it's not really a
problem because

1) we're only a discussion list based in Germany,
2) we're not incorporated in the US,
3) we're not raising money using the ICANN name,
4) Jefsey owns the name ICANNATLARGE.ORG

Look, the bottom line is that the ability of this organization to represent
the best interests of users in matters of internet governance in a
legitimate way is not significantly affected by its choice of name, if at
all, save if it becomes embroiled in a time consuming and expensive legal
defense of the choice of name. Since you cannot possibly claim to be an
existing Member of a private corporation called ICANN which has no members,
to my way of thinking, it's a no brainer.

Anyway, well done standing your ground. No doubt there are many attorneys
out there willing to defend you for free. And you don't have to enforce the
Panel decision to have the registrant of the winning name transfer it to the
organization, and you can decide to incorporate outside US jurisdiction to
deliberately evade any legitimate claims being made against you for
trademark infringement, and you can start to raise money using the ICANN's
name hoping that people will realize you're not part of ICANN at all, or
better still, ask ICANN to raise the money for you. That should bring you a
lot of credibility with the organizations you are hoping to influence and
attract the most experienced users to participate in the effort.

Now, I'll get back to validating the ballots against the membership list.

Regards,
Joanna


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