[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss] Domain Name: icannatlarge.org
At 01:12 a.m. 12/10/2002 -0400, Judyth wrote:
Aye, there's the rub. We members know only the couple of dozen other
members who have been posting to the list. The remaining 970+ are complete
unknowns and we have no means of knowing what they think except by polling
them in *some* fashion.
If we don't create a procedure whereby we elicit their opinions, there can
be no consensus. If we don't put these matters on an official ballot AND
also rule out "show of hands" votes on the list, there can be no assent or
dissent from a proposal. The Panel has been elected under a somewhat
ill-defined mandate and the Chair is the Chair of the Panel, apparently,
with no role in setting realistic agendas for the membership's
discussions. At that point, there is no means by which anyone, our Panel
included, can be authorized to do anything much towards getting this
organization off the ground. And it would certainly be easier for us to
discuss matters with a "common goal in view" if we had some means of
agreeing on what that common goal is!
In short, we're caught in a vicious circle. If we can't establish some set
of rules which allows us to choose between the two different types of
missions and then refine and vote on the one chosen, or allows us to
structure the debate so as to work out a reasonable compromise on which
there can be a consensus of the membership, the only avenue which remains
open is to continue to debate in a vacuum to no effect, perhaps in the
hope that our Panel will eventually present us with a fait accompli and a
chance to vote "yes" or "no" on the whole package... which is no kind of
democracy in my books.
I would be eternally grateful if somebody could propose a workable process
which does not involve some kind of defined procedure and some kind of
neutral source by which disputes can be resolved without rancour.
I don't know if the following proposal will deserve anyone's gratitude, but
here is a way forward to consider:
We clearly have members who have joined us to continue the battle for
representation in ICANN. This group ought to come up with a mission
statement that sums up their mission and purpose of organizing, not
excluding the possibility of being a pressure group outside ICANN.
(there are also pure ICANN supporters among our members, such as Esther
Dyson and Mike Roberts.
I do not know if they are on this list--please Thomas, once
again, consider making the list of participants here public.)
Then we have members who dream of the wider mission, the farther future and
who abhor even the association with a corrupt ICANN. This group too, ought
to have a champion who will draft a satisfactory mission statement for such
an option. (Richard?)
The two alternative mission statements can be developed here on the open
list or in the Forum (first drafts are already there) and when there are no
more amendments *both* get submitted to the membership for a binding vote,
together with a summary of the arguments for each.
In order to give the organizing efforts a chance, the losing minority
commits not to fight a re-litigation of the "battle of Mission Statement"
before there are at least 2500 members and is in return respected by the
majority as a loyal 'opposition". Respected for its contributions and help.
If that would not be acceptable for the potential minority and the two
wings of our membership would prefer to waste their energy on internal
fights for control of icannatlarge.org, it is better to separate early and
just form a loose "alliance of common purpose".
That way no energies will be lost in wrestling with the wrong enemies.
Of course you may see protests from those who prefer to see internal fights
prolonged.
--Joop
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de