[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Open call to join
Thanks Joop : the Polling Booth is potentially a most valuable tool for
aggregating the opinions of the broad membership on a wide range of topics.
This way, there is less danger of capture by a few activists, and less
chance of a small number of people (or a panel majority?) bulldozing
mistaken perceptions through against the published opinions of the broader
membership.
We want to be democratic? This is democratic.
My thanks to the private supporter (not me) who financed this initiative.
I'd be very interested in the issue of participation in ICANN's RALOs being
made the subject of a poll.
My questions for the membership would be whether they:
(A) want the group to help build up ICANN's Ralos and structures... or
(B) want the group to form a coalition with its own structures OUTSIDE the
Icann scheme, in clear opposition to the fake At Large that Icann is trying
to develop as a public relations stunt.
Remember everything ICANN has done to the At Large and democratic
representation to date:
ignored their own ALSG recommendations...
chosen to expel the democratic representatives of the At Large (ie the vast
constituency of millions of ordinary internet users) from the Board Room...
shutting down the GA which was another focus of dissenting opinion...
attempted to marginalise a powerless At Large deep within the labyrinths of
its "reform" processes, leaving the Board unrestrained, unchallenged, and
unaccountable.
The Polling Booth is an excellent idea, for monitoring the real feelings and
opinions of our broader membership, and a very good check and balance to a
panel which seems to "think it knows best" and which seems to be steering
this group informally into the arms of ICANN's controlled and constrained
"at-large".
Richard Henderson
----- Original Message -----
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
Cc: <eric@hi-tek.com>; <bruce@barelyadequate.info>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>;
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:41 AM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Open call to join
> At 01:02 a.m. 30/12/2002, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >So why cannot bylaws be completed.
>
> To get 11 people to agree on Bylaws is probably not trivial. Especially if
> there would be agenda's behind certain formulations, that would meet with
> opposition. The IDNO has gone over such hard ground....
>
> The Bylaws, even if they are not set in stone, can make or break the
> beginning of the organization.
>
> Their details should be discussed here and in the icannatlarge.com
WebForum
> so that the "drafters" have some guidance on at least what the active
> component of the membership wants.
>
> For example: the pro's and con's of incorporation in the United
> States. While it would be obviously logical for a US RALO to incorporate
> in the US, it does not appear to be so obvious for the International
Umbrella.
> Ditto the pro's and cons of 501c3 Tax rights and Reporting Obligations for
> icannatlarge. Is the hassle worth the (corporate) deductability?
>
> Also debate is needed on the level of "directness" in the democratic
> decisionmaking for the icannatlarge. This is the very debate that those
who
> will be out to capture this baby cyber-organization wish to pre-empt.
>
> How will the rights and duties of the icannatlarge officers be
> formulated? Can they act as they please? Should the Bylaws contain a
> precise deliniation of what they can formally do in the name of the
> membership?
> What are the options of the membership to exercise ultimate political
> control? How often should elections be held? Should certain policy items
> be subject to referenda?
>
> The "boilerplate" Bylaws that we have seen so far, are quite inapplicable
> to Global Virtual Organizations and totally insufficient to shape the
> future of the icannatlarge.
>
> Because Constitutions are made up of a large number of interrelated
> articles, their drafting is a matter of (political) TRUST, not merely of
> competence.
>
> One of the few things we *can* do from the bottom up, is indicate who we
trust.
>
> We can give "ticks" of trust on a long list of names of ICANN
> "participants", "watchers" or "critics".
>
> This list will appear in the Polling Booth , the hosting for which has now
> been funded by one of you on this ML.
>
> I have kicked off the list with the Initial ICANN Board and its architect.
:-)
>
> Long lists as additions are most welcome to be posted in the Forum.
> http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=812#812
>
> When we have several hundred names, they will be ordered alphabetically
and
> presented in the Polling Booth.
>
> --Joop--
> www.icannatlarge.com
>
> Sign up and spread the word.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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