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

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

Joop and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  Excellent well reasoned comments/suggestions by both Judyth and
Joop here IMHO!  Well done both!
(More observations/comments/suggestions below Judith's and Joops)

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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.

  Partly a very good point here Judyth.  Yes polling would be one
step in the right direction.  Hence my incessant call for a voting
process/method/platform that can allow for members to do
so and keep their privacy in tact.

  However I would also for those of our silent members to speak up
and let you thoughts, concerns, suggestions, however small, and
positions be known on this or our soon I hope, own forum.

  It is clear that much house keeping for this organization is
not getting done, which MAY be one of several reasons that
a number of our members are being silent.

>
> >
> >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.

  Lists votes/polls can indeed be helpful and useful.  They can also be
a detriment as many of our members privacy could be in jeopardy
to the extent that they are not interested in this sort of polling/voting.
I can sympathize with this point of view, if it exists.  And I am sure
it does.  The second problem with List votes/polls is that there
needs to be someone that will volunteer to keep track of such
votes/polls.  So far, few either have the time or are willing to
dedicate a portion of their time to do so, that I have seen.

> 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.

  Here you and I Judyth do not agree.  The Panel and this membership
voted on the limited mandate for those panel members.  Yet the
new Chair, much like the previous chair, has decided to negate
their primary responsibilities of the Mandated tasks that they are
supposed to be concentrating on in favor of other non-panel
tasks that the members can and should do for themselves
in self organization such a Working groups, committees, and
perhaps Task forces.

> 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.

  The primary tasks of which the Panel was elected to do, would go
a very long way in getting the primary formation of this organization
off and running.  So far though, they have chosen to deliberately venture
into areas of other debates and discussion that are outside getting those
tasks completed or even worked upon.

> 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!

  This is a very good point here Judyth!  Yes we need to get this
defined roughly at least and as broadly as you have suggested
recently.

>
> >
> >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.

  Also a very good point here as well Judyth.

>
> >
> >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.

 Some amount of Rancor is unfortunately unavoidable.  A broadly defined
and open process for doing as you suggest here is available.  And has always
been available.  Some members would however prefer a very structured
approach, which puts the process debate in play now.  This needs
to be determined by a short series of resolutions that the members
have an opportunity to vote upon.  But first a voting platform/software
needs to be chosen that will allow for this.  This will require funds,
which we do not yet have, but can get pretty quickly...

>
>
> 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.

  Good suggestion here Joop.  The converse is also true.  That being
that we clearly have a number of members that want nothing to do
with ICANN, and a mission statement should be drafted so that
the members can also vote upon it but yet not exclude ongoing
interface with ICANN on our own terms or compromised
terms that meet the members determined approval by individual
vote.  Much like Coop's do for instance...

>
>
> (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?)

  Yes, see my comments and suggestions just above and in the archives
of this forum.

>
>
> 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.

  Good suggestion.

>
>
> 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.

  Not a good idea here Joop.  Putting a predetermined figure or such
a re-litigation of said mission statement change would be divisive
and not legitimate in nature.  A review of the mission statement
should be and can be one way of handling this.  Once per
year a block of time should or can be set aside for this.

>
>
> 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".

  Perhaps...

>
>
> That way no energies will be lost in wrestling with the wrong enemies.

  All enemies are wrong.  Opponents are always there.  They are
not enemies or at least should not be viewed as such.

>
>
> Of course you may see protests from those who prefer to see internal fights
> prolonged.

  Yes we have seen this from you amongst a number of members
Joop.  So like the Michael Jackson song says in one stanza of its
lyrics, "If you want to make a change, it begins with you!"  >;)

>
>
> --Joop
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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