Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] RE: (fwd) [atlarge-panel] draft motion on membership vote

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey, Bruce and all,

  I also think this is a bit too complex a process that Bruce has outlined
below.  I also don't think using a voting mechanism that is in the control of
one member (Joops voting booth) is not a good idea as it's history
has bread bad faith and is not good for a voting mechanism, but could
be readily used for a polling tool.

  This said, Bruce's idea is still better than nothing or what we have thus
far.  If we use a neutral voting mechanism, it could be accomplished, and
with that one change I would be willing to give it a try...

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> IMHO it is too complex a proposition. It calls for a lot of staff and
> effort and it is far too much demaning on the members in term of
> understanding of the ICAN situation. This is typcial ICANN style.
>
> We have to find and work out our own style. I think it is to poll members
> proposition of questions. It is then panel editing into a compacted neutral
> list respecting every received non disrupting question and voting
> explanation. Can be quick cut and paste and progressively a better system
> (wiki?).
>
> Then we have a gallup. From that the panel proposes two or three solutions
> to a vote, calling for a team of two or three supporters to write and edit
> their text. Then a vote. KISS and keep our member involved. KISSOMI.
>
> jfc
>
> On 02:23 23/01/03, bruce@barelyadequate.info said:
>
> >Here's my inputs:
> >
> >|  >DRAFT MOTION #D005: GENERAL MEMBERSHIP VOTE ON THE MISSION OF THE
> >|  >ORGANIZATION
> >|  >
> >|  >"The panel will organize a general membership vote on the following
> >|  >subject:
> >|  >- which should be the mission of the organization, and particularly,
> >|  >whether the organization should try to encompass impartially all At
> >|  >Large participation and opinions or become a "party" with specific
> >|  >opinions in the At Large world;
> >|  >- whether and how the organization should participate in the RALO/ALAC
> >|  >process;
> >|  >- whether and how the organization should incorporate.
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >|  >Such vote will be held by e-mail. Each member will receive at its
> >|  >registered e-mail address a ballot, identified by an anonymous vote.
> >|  >The ballot will contain a certain number of questions, not higher than
> >|  >six, and a set of possible answers. Voters will have to return the
> >|  >ballot to a given e-mail address, during a voting period not shorter
> >|  >than seven days. The practical operations of the vote will be managed
> >|  >by the Chair.
> >
> >Assuming he is willing to participate, and has the technology to validate
> >individual voters, let's consider opening an opportunity to use Joop's
> >Polling Booth as well, or similar Web-based voting options.
> >
> >Can I assume that, at some point, the voting mechanism you're setting up
> >will be a permanent service?
> >
> >|  >Questions and answers to be put on the ballot will be collected in a
> >|  >public comment period that will last five days and will be announced
> >|  >on the atlarge-discuss list;
> >
> >We should open this up to the general membership, and offer them to reply to
> >the discuss list with their ideas.
> >
> >|  >each member who wants to propose
> >|  >questions may post them to the atlarge-discuss list during this
> >|  >period. At the end of the period, the panel will collect all proposed
> >|  >questions related to the scope of the vote, merge the similar ones,
> >|  >and reduce them to the maximum allowed number, according to consensus
> >|  >on the atlarge-discuss list; finally, the panel will approve the
> >|  >questions and answers to be submitted to the membership, one by one.
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >|  >The ballot will contain a short introductory text explaining the
> >|  >purpose of the vote.
> >
> >OK
> >
> >|  If the total size of the ballot will allow it,
> >|  >very short statements in favour of the different options, made by the
> >|  >supporters of each option during the public comment period, will be
> >|  >included."
> >
> >Yes.  This would be a good idea
> >
> >
> >Bruce Young
> >Portland, Oregon USA
> >bruce@barelyadequate.info
> >http://www.barelyadequate.info
> >--------------------------------------------
> >Support democratic control of the Internet!
> >Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-panel-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-panel-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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