Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Focused Mission Statement (was:point of order)

["Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com>]

Hello Ron:

I was agreeing with the gist of Joop's message rather than seconding any argument.  No offense meant.

Regards,


Micheal Sherrill
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Date:  Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:39:03 +1300

At 08:54 a.m. 14/10/2002 -0400, Ron Sherwood wrote:
>Good morning, Joop:
>
>     I did not suggest that we abandon democracy.  Your response using that
>premise has generated a lot of mail, but does not correctly characterize my
>post.

Good morning to you too Ron,

I am sorry if my strong suggestion *not* to abandon democracy gave in any 
way the impression that you suggested otherwise.

My plea for a focused mission  statement was as much a response to to 
Richard's post  as it was to yours.


>     Your recognition that there are two factions within the membership that
>have opposing views on the methodology we should adopt to achieve our goals
>prompted my response. What I suggested was that we do not have to be so
>inflexible that we adopt a single measure that alienates one group of
>members in favor of another.

Two sayings spring to mind: "soft doctors make stinking wounds" and "good 
fences make good neighbours".

If the two groups part amicably now, each can be the kernel of a new , 
focused and stronger entity in cyberspace.   The hundred- or- so lurkers on 
this list are certainly not the final figure of those who eventually can be 
persuaded to get involved.

We can help each other at many turns, make joint statements, etc. , etc.

But I think each group needs a different structure in order to be effective.

>    The goal as I understand it, is at-large participation in management of
>the Internet as a global resource.

  I hope something like that  that came across in what I proposed as a 
mission statement, except that  "management of the Internet" is a bit wider 
that what I would see as the area of focus for At Large participation.

>     Let us assume that the majority of our membership is in favor of our
>organization addressing ICANN and Internet governance from a standpoint of
>massive external consensus, having sufficient weight to demand meaningful
>participation (or by creating a DNS system that bypasses ICANN altogether).
>The creation and management of such a group could prove to be extremely
>difficult, and the time-line to success extremely long.

I am very reluctant to speculate what the majority of our current 
membership is in favour of unless I see a clear and unambiguous poll 
prepared under the responsibility of *elected* Polling officers. 
No  leading polling questions and no ad-hoc appointments of watchdogs that 
end up functioning as Polling Officers. (no offence meant to those who did 
a job as best they could)

>     Now suppose that a smaller group of members is in favor of working from
>within, or at least working with, ICANN to achieve the same goal.  What is
>wrong with our organization adopting both modus operandi as a dual strategy?

The problem is that working with ICANN may require compromises. It *will* 
require that our organization is focused on a nomination- and election 
process of worthy Board members for ICANN (no compromise on that).
It *is likely  to* require a different organizational structure and 
different Bylaw provisions.

As such a "dual strategy" presents unsurmountable problems.

>The membership can vote democratically to approve either method or both.
>This is not an abandonment of democracy, it is an inclusive solution rather
>than an exclusive one.

I respect this point of view and again I am sorry if anyone thought that I 
questioned your commitment to member-democracy.
It is simply my experience that multi-party democracy works better (is more 
democratic?) than one-party democracy.

As it is, Richard has already indicated a preference of action:

>|  The name of our organisation has been decided, but the
>|  fundamental structure
>|  of our web presence should be built around www.atlarge.org
>|
>|  Richard


--Joop


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



*************************************************
 Listen to the "World's Classical Radio Station"
            http://www.beethoven.com
Great Music, Free Email, Exciting Bulletin Board!

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