Re: [atlarge-discuss] PASSED: ALAC/ALOC REPRESENTATIVES

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

FYI.

As far as I understand the candidates of representatives from
ICANNatlarge.org should be open to the members.

Regards,
YJ

----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <edyson@edventure.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: [atlarge-panel] Designated representatives from
ICANNatlarge.org --> ALAC

> Hans and other panel members,
>
> Finally we agreed the following motion presented by Richard, which is
> great.
>
> "After consultation with the membership to determine who would be
> interested in serving Icannatlarge.org as representatives, the panel shall
> vote on which persons to designate as representatives on the ICANN
> ALAC/ALOC effort. Those representatives will make regular reports to the
> membership about the ALAC/ALOC activities and will promote the views and
> policies of our organisation, as defined by panel majority in consultation
> with members."
>
> Yesterday, I talked with Esther explaining that ICANNatlarge.org is trying
> to send designated representatives to ALAC
>
> We can consider two options to implement this motion which can be
> incorporated into our chair election soon for decision.
>
> First option is simple one.
> -----------------------------------
> Since the panel is elected earlier by the members, the panel can be
> electorate just as DNSO council members do elect their DNSO Board
> member. Therefore, if panel member wants to be candidate for ALAC
> the member should recuse him/herself, first. The candidate should be
> ICANNatlarge.org member.
>
> Second option is energy-consuming
> --------------------------------------------------
> It may decrease some level of controversy within our organization.
> Therefore, the electorate is the whole members of ICANNatlarge.org.
> The issue is how we can timely manage this election on the volunteer
> basis which sometimes is stuck with unexpected reasons.
>
> Timeframe for election regardless of the option
>
> Nov. 1 - 10: Nomination
> Call for representative among ICANNatlarge.org members including panel
>
> Nov. 10 - 20: Campaign
> Statement from the candidates and talk with the electorates
>
> Nov 20 - 30: Voting
>
> Dec. 5: Announcement of Voting result.
>
> The issue is how many representatives we can designate to the
> ALAC, which we expect we do have close communication with Esther.
>
> As soon as we sort out the way to designate our representatives and
> number of representatives, we should call for volunteers to conduct
> election and form election committee to manage this.
>
> Just my two cents,
>
> YJ
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jkhan" <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] PASSED: ALAC/ALOC REPRESENTATIVES


> I would have to agree that: a system of 'Direct -Voting' on issues by
> Membership would be appropriate at this time.
>
> Thomas Jefferson and George Washington deliberated quite extensibly on
this
> subject. That is; the representation by Representatives, is a necessary
evil
> that concentrates power into the hands of a few, which becomes vulnerable
to
> corruption.
>
> Fortunately, we now have the technology to over-come this obstacle in the
> decision-making process(es). We should make use of the technology of our
> time, as I am sure Jefferson and Washington would do.
> -- James Khan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Richard Henderson
> Cc: espresso@e-scape.net; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] PASSED: ALAC/ALOC REPRESENTATIVES
> At 04:35 p.m. 30/10/2002 +0000, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> >My (revised) view on this is as follows: if there is a clear
> >groundswell of member opinion that they want to be involved in the
> >decision-making process, then why on earth not let them/us?
> -- Richard
>
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:38 PM
> To: Richard Henderson
>
> >Here you are on the right track,  Richard.
> >I don't think members will be "put off" any more by opportunities to
> >regularly contribute to the organization by voting, preferably on a
> >non-intruding web based interface, than by endless bickering about
> >authority on a mailing list most members will not have the time for to be
> >subscribed to and read.
> --Joop
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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