Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

I agree with Wolgang's suggestion, providing (a) the questions advocating an
ICANN-RALO approach are phrased by those who support that approach; and the
questions advocating an independent At Large (mobilising and organising and
operating outside ICANN's structures) are phrased by those who support that
approach.

Let the advocates of these two approaches phrase their own questions for the
membership. Let advocates of a via media phrase theirs. Ideally I'd like to
see as wide a range of questions on the future and identity and goals put to
the membership, posed freely by any member (so the panel cannot be accused
of rigging the ballot by the nature of the questions). If we are a
democratic organisation, I think we have nothing to fear letting all members
introduce their questions... and then letting all members vote and express
their views on those questions...

Why should we fear finding out exactly what our membership stands for, what
they feel, what they want?

This could be done through a panel-run ballot, if the panel would agree.

Alternatively it could be done through the Poll Booth, with the grass roots
members (maybe not panelists running it at all) carrying it out, and
everyone invited to vote on plenty of issues.

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Kleinwächter <bkleinwaechter@web.de>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation


> Dear Vittorio,
>
> as a former panel member, who has followed the discussion and was rather
> silent the the last weeks, I would support a quick and simple procedure to
> ask the 1000+ registered icanatlarge.com/.org members, whether they have
> joined the emerging organisation to work within or outside ICANN. Time is
> more than ripe to make a clear distinction. As far as I see the process
> there will be unavoidable a split: there are a number of
> people/unsers/members who want to work within ICANN and the emerging
RALOs.
> And there are a number of people/users/members who want to work outside
> ICANN. Both sides have good reasons for their approach but it is
impossible,
> at least for the moment, to bridge this two positions. Both sides block
each
> other and the outcome is zero. In such a situation a split is a clear
> answer. Both sides can do whatever they want, find supporters, create a
> structure based on a mission statement and bylaws and adopt a work plan.
So
> my recommendation is that you as the chairman aks this question. And in
the
> light of the vote you can decide what you want to do in the future.
>
> Once again, take my compliments for your engaged work since March 2002.
>
> Best regards
>
>
> wolfgang kleinwaechter
>
> BTW, if you go back into the history of the social movements in the 19th
> century the discussion, pushed forward by Richard, Sotiris and others
should
> not come as a surprise. I recommend people interested in this subject to
> study the documents of the German Lablur movement between 1848 and 1893,
in
> particular the writing of Mr. Lasalle and the documents of the Gothaer
> Vereinigungsparteitag.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu.org>
> To: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
> Cc: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>;
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation
>
>
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:27:16 +1300, you wrote:
>
> >>Now if only the rest of the current Panel would conscientiously follow
> suit, we
> >>can turn this thing around and have some chance at progressing this
> >>organization.
> >
> >I don't want all or even most of the panel to resign necessarily.  I
> >just want them to start producing results.
>
> I am not sure about what I should do. I have been spending as much
> time as I could in December to keep our website minimally updated, to
> try to restart discussion on bylaws, and to find volunteers to lead
> this and other tasks (as I cannot manage to be Chair, write the Bylaws
> and be the webmaster alone).
>
> For example, I could call a panel vote on the mission statement any
> time, and I was in fact going to do it, but what would it be for if
> there has not been any feedback or discussion on the working group
> that was created to do so? Or we could have the vote on where we
> should head, ie whether we should join the RALO process (and how much)
> or not, but again, I only heard Richard and Jefsey on it. And I don't
> think it's the case that I decide things alone or almost alone.
>
> Personally, I think that there's no point in getting even more weeks
> of instability by having the panel resign and voting new people in,
> and that things could be better if you and other interested people
> joined wg-bylaws and if all panel members could at least spare some
> time to ratify the results.
>
> But again, the Chair is here mostly to follow the membership's
> suggestions.
> --
> vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>


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