Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss] Domain Name: icannatlarge.org

["NameCritic" <chris1@telnor.net>]

Richard, Judyth, and all, I seconded the motion about the vote on whether to
include ICANN in our name and suggest we proceed on that in agreement with
Judyth here.

However I also make a motion. That we vote on a name for the organization,
disregarding domain name availability. If we choose a name then cannot get
that exact domain name we will vote on some optional domain names to
register. In the meantime we file a TM on the name and possibly get the
corresponding domain name donated, wait til it drops, or whatever.

To clarify what motion I am making here; I move that we vote on the name of
the organization not on a domain name.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: <espresso@e-scape.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:25 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss] Domain Name:
icannatlarge.org


May I add my voice to clamour asking our Acting Chair of the Interim Panel
to contact Marc Schneiders forthwith and ask him what it will take to get
*both* of those names transferred to this soon-to-be-organized organization?

We should note that said transfer cannot be made to a non-existent entity.
If we are not able to use a quick-and-dirty process to register the group
before its incorporation (as Jefsey has already offered to do for us in
France) so as to have the ownership transferred to it, then it might be an
idea to ask that the domain be transferred to the members of the Web WG
(naming all the individuals) after resolving that they be collectively
responsible for it until the incorporation has been done.

The suggestion that a preferential balloting conducted under one set of
conditions can be infinitely manipulated in the light of new circumstances
strikes me as a *serious* error. Although members were asked to rank their
choices at the time, they might well have ranked things differently given a
different set of options, so David's suggestion of a recount simply dropping
out one option is subject to the most of the same objections as were made
when it was suggested that that option be dropped from the ballot while the
voting was taking place.

As for the idea that it's "mickey mouse" for a democratic organization to
vote more than once ... well, as far as I am concerned, it's simply
irresponsible in a democracy to think that voting for what one believes
isn't worth the effort of putting an "X" on a ballot and hitting "Reply". If
more than a handful of the 1000 members think they can have an impact on
Internet governance without being responsible enought to cast their votes,
it's no wonder democracy is being so eroded in "meatspace".

In fact, I would argue that the reasons only 20% of the membership cast
their ballots last time around were
a) we were supposedly choosing a name for the organization but were instead
voting on only domain names already registered, and
b) it was hard to tell at any given moment whether the vote would be
stopped, completely but subsequently nullified for cause, or considered
binding.
If this time around the ballot were to spell out that we are choosing
amongst a list of *domain* names available to us at that moment (and it
obviously won't be identical to the previous list) so as to set up a new
site, and that the choice is of some importance since it represents the
first concrete step to becoming a real organization, perhaps there would be
a better turnout. I sincerely hope so -- if not, there is little hope those
members will have anything meaningful to say within this group, let alone to
ICANN.

Anyway, I'd like to remind us all that there are TWO motions on the floor at
this moment, both properly proposed and seconded, and democratic procedure
requires they be attended to without delay.

1. A "yes" or "no" vote on :
       MOVED that we put the question (below) to a vote ASAP.
             (Proposed: J. Mermelstein; seconded J.-F.C. Morfin)

If it's "no", we go on debating; if it's "yes" we immediately vote on

2. >   MOVED we ask the membership whether they want the word
>      "ICANN" in our name - YES or NO
             (Proposed: Richard Henderson; seconded: Chris McElroy)

Under _Robert's Rules of Order_ and most other handbooks for the orderly
conduct of an organization's affairs
- any member may propose or second any motion that seems appropriate
- when a motion has been duly proposed and seconded, the Chair calls for
discussion of the motion and, if discussion comes to a natural end, calls
for a vote
- if the discussion veers off elsewhere or indicates there is neither
agreement on it nor a desire to amend it, any member may move to "put the
question" -- i.e., call for an immediate vote -- and if that motion is duly
seconded, the Chair calls for a immediate vote which determines whether the
original motion will carry as written.

This discussion list is the equivalent of a meeting of the membership of
this group. Much of the discussion is a free-for-all -- the open exchange of
ideas which a democracy seeks to foster -- but eventually there comes a time
when one must make a decision and move on to other business.

This type of vote is normally done by a show of hands of those present at
the meeting, rather than by a secret ballot as is the case for elections or
the ratification of bylaws. It's pretty straightforward: the Chair calls for
a vote, the members vote, and the motion either carries or fails.

In our situation, it may be that participants in this list are a minority
among the membership. In that case, it would be proper to send a ballot to
all registered members on the main motion (that is, asking for approval by
the membership of a new ballot as to whether "ICANN" shouldd be part of the
name). Still, I believe it is legitimate to ask for a vote of list
participants on whether or not they want that ballot to be sent... which was
the intent of my motion to put the question of Richard's motion -- which
asks members *here* to vote on whether the Panel should organize a "yes/no"
ballot for the whole membership.

I know procedural matters seem terribly boring to some of you but the reason
organizations adopt Rules of Order is because these actually help to clarify
issues, obtain a democratic vote, and go on to implement its results. In the
absence of basic rules or the will to apply them, we get free-form arguments
and organizational paralysis. Alternatively, we get a situation where the
only things that actually get done are the ones individuals will do without
worrying about whether or not they have a mandate to go ahead ... which can
be fairly efficient, given the right individuals, but doesn't in any way
resemble a democracy.

Unfortunately, it is time to make up our minds about what we are really
trying to accomplish and figure out how to work constructively together. As
I've said before, there is no sense at all to worrying about new Web sites
and recruiting and donatiions and all that if we can't even say clearly what
it is we will do and by what kind of process.

Regards,

Judyth

P.S. If there were to be a whole new ballot on the name issue, there should
first be a call for other suggestions. There are other domain names out
there, already registered or not, which might be as suitable. On the other
hand, if there were a revote on the previous list, it should include the
icann-at-large.org variant which Jefsey owns.




##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



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



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