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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joanna and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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.

  But the choice was not invalid.  It isn't now.  To make is such is
in itself invalid.  The Watchdogs should not engage in such a decision
when the vote is ongoing.

>
>
> 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.

  Untrue.  Those that may have or had voted for ICANNATLARGE.COM
would have been  disenfranchised.  So I cannot see where you are getting
this at all Joanna...  ????

> 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.

  MAY EXIST?  How would such legal advice be actionable in any
reasonable sense?

> 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.

  Sounds like Florida...

> 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 than cancel the vote altogether, or risk a result in which the withdrawn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.

  Yes there was a precedent.  And it was than and remains now to
be a poor one.

> 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.

  Good point here.  But too little too late...

>
>
> > >>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.

  Your the panel chair, not the chair of the membership Joanna.  It seems
that you frequently forget that fact...

> 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.

  Yes, steer..  Hummm?  Maybe we don't need of want to be steered?
I know I don't.  I can make up my own mind without having to be
steered...  I can always ask for advice...

>
> The reverse gives ICANN the upper hand and removes this groups autonomy.

  How so?  To me the reverse gives ICANN the notion that we are
a paper tiger...

>
> 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

  Well these are at some of the reasons yes.  Only one of which (#2)
is really relevant.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes but ICANN without members is likely in violation of California
state statute as well as US Federal law on that point Joanna.

>
>
> 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.

  There is no legitimate TM claim that ICANN could not place upon
us if we retained any DN with the the string "ICANN" as part of that
name regardless of us raising any funds for our members.

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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