Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 07:22:51 +0100, "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin"
<jefsey@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>At 21:14 05/01/03, DPF wrote:
>> >2. yet what contingency plan do you propose? The only suggestion
>> >     by Sotiris is to repeat it ("new election"). Errare humanum est,
>> >     perseverare diabolicum.
>>
>>What I would like before that step is for the panel to list what it
>>believes it can achieve in its year in office
>
>as a panelist I say from experience : none. None with this panel or with 
>any other one. Just because the world, the people, management, network 
>democracy, life, people motivation, etc. etc. do not go that way.

Absolute defeatist bullshit.  My God this is not designing a space
shuttle.  This is not the only online organisation.  If you think you
can't work co-opeeratively with your fellow panelists to make progress
then why the hell are you on the panel?

>>and then specific time frames for each task.
>
>Just a practical explanation why your request is unfeasible. To set-up an 
>agenda would require the panel to agree to vote on such an agenda:
>
>- is it opportune y/n
>- is it feasible y/n
>- is the agenda in proper order y/n - most would disagree
>- is the agenda what we want to achieve y/n - most would have different views

With leadership that would take a week to establish.  You float a
proposition, you listen to views, amend accordingly and then vote on
it after which you implement.

This is not hypothetical.  I have done this in other organisations
which decide things online.  

>It would probably take three months and most would have left the panel.

Well if the panel can not make progress this is not a bad thing.
Making progress requite flexibility and compromise.  You float ideas
and argue for them but recognise that your ideas are not the only
valid ones.  Unless the ideas put forward by others are repugnant then
you don't lose a lot of sleep if your ideas do not always win - you
recognise that it is important to move forward and not spend 18 months
debating where to incorporate.

>>So it might be :
>>
>>31 Jan  Decision on Incorporation
>>28 Feb  Vote held on fundamental role and purpose
>>31 Mar  Bylaws adopted by members vote
>>31 May  Fund raising letters gone out to Registries, Registrars,
>>Markle etc
>>30 April        Content Management System for website finalised
>>
>>This is not rocket science - this is normal good planning and organisation.
>
>No. This is pure dreaming.

Here - I'll make an offer.  I do this very reluctantly because I would
rather encourage from below than lead from front.  Give me and Sotiris
and say three other people mutually acceptable (not currently on the
panel) 10 weeks as an interim panel and I'll guarantee you we can
achieve the first four items on that list.  At the end of that time we
will step aside after running new elections and be ineligible to hold
any elected or appointed office for say two years. (Note I am speaking
for myself not sure if Sotiris would agree but he is a doer not a
talker and someone I could work with despite the fact we have
disagreed on many issues in the past).

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and say I do not accept
the dismal status quo is the best we can achieve.  If I accept that
then I have to accept that ICANN is right to be top down management
led rather than bottom up user led.  And I do not accept that.

>We have only people "planing" for others. This is not the way it works. No 
>one wants to be planned by others, and should they accept, they simply get 
>demotivated or feel rejected by petty tyrants immediately calling for a 
>respect of the plan. From experience you may have noted that democratic 
>votes only elect people we reject, IMHO because they believe that because 
>they have been elected they have been entrusted top-down powers and because 
>people enjoy powers even on nothing.

Those elected need to show leadership.  That is why we elect people.
Yes I want the panel to do the planning for the organisation because
sure as hell 1,000 individual members can not.  I certainly want the
right as a member to accept or reject by vote the panel's plans but I
want them to produce something I can vote on.

>Let be pragmatic: you call for global action and for leadership. This has a 
>name: Fascism. This has never worked.

Oh grow up you silly little man.  I'm not even going to pretend that
this statement is worth debating.  It in trivial and insulting and
like much of what you do a distraction from making progress.

>You certainly have not understood anything at my nz@large. It is not for it 
>to provide support to you, 

I have never said it is.  You seem to be the one inventing the need
for it.

>it is for you to outreach to NZ people. 

I don't need a separate organisation and website to do that.  Once
icannatlarge.org actually is doing things we can be proud of and want
to promote to others, then I'll promote it widely and heavily to NZers
and lots of other people.  I can even arrange local media coverage
etc.  But that doesn't need a nz@large - it needs a functioning
icannatlarge.org.

>And if 
>you do not like NZ, then join barrister@large to outreach and join with 
>other lawyers, or david@large to join, share and uniter with other Davids. 
>It is only that as DPF your are crdible in your circles, of absolute no 
>help outside of them.

Other lawyers?  Please I am a political operative not a lawyer which
surely ranks someway up the evolutionary scale.  Well we are above
used car salespersons anyway.

>It is nice of you to refuse to do any homework, humanwork and to call on 
>others to do their galactical , theoretical work. 

Hello I am one of those who has done homework.  I have spent hours
working on things like bylaws, legal advice etc.  I have just made an
offer to do all the work as the panel seems unable to make progress.
This is not to criticise members of the panel as individuals (many of
whom I respect and admire) but to recognise that collectively they are
not producing results for the organisation.

>We will never get 100.000 people if we do not do any outreach and do not 
>proposes prospects something more attractive than never ending disputes on 
>bylaws and charters. What people are interested in are not charters, 
>bylaws, mission statements, votes, etc. they are interested in life, in 
>inter-relating with interesting others, to make felt time to time the power 
>of their union.

And how many members of france@large have you managed?  We certainly
are far away from 100,000 members and in fact I suspect many of our
1,000 members have now lost interest and will never participate again.
We have squandered a golden opportunity.

>Then when you start being credible, you can start building. Cell by cell. 
>Organization by organization. The reason why is that I am not interested in 
>building with DPF because he/we can each of us disappear tomorrow. I am 
>interested in building with an organization DPF may lead today, if he has 
>demonstrated that should he go, someone of the same caliber will replace him.

I have no interest in leading except when it is necessary to get
things done.  The whole purpose of incorporating, getting a missions
statement, bylaws and funding is so that what we leave behind will
succeed without us.  The problem at the moment though is the panel has
built nothing to leave behind.  We have decided on a name and a domain
and that is around all.  

DPF
--
E-mail: david@farrar.com
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com

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