[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] enough waiting for nothing



At 18:25 -0800 2003/02/03, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Joop and all,
>
>  I got your message from webmaster@icannatlarge.com regarding the
>Poll you are promoting.  Although this effort is admirable it is
>misplaced and not a part or ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
>
>  Indeed the present Panel have been less than productive sense their
>inception, such efforts as you Joop are desiring and promoting
>should originate from our official Web site ICANNATLARGE.ORG.

Personally, I have difficulty understanding Jeff's perpetual
insistence that everything must emanate from the server
hosting ICANNATLARGE.ORG -- thousands of Web sites have
some of their pages or functions hosted on an external server
without impairing their usefulness or legitimacy.

That being said, I continue to be concerned about the fact
that virtually everything concrete we do is in fact not done
by us as a group, or even ratified by the group, but happens
only because some individual takes the decision unilaterally.

That, my friends, is how NOT to have democratic governance.
So, at the risk of upsetting (again) all the people who think
that the general membership shouldn't vote on proposals
or that voting should not be permitted on this list, I
would like to propose:

a) THAT the ad hoc voting mechanism set up at ICANNATLARGE.COM
be approved for use by the ICANNATLARGE.ORG membership in
order to gauge the interests and opinions of as many
registered members as possible, and

b) THAT this approval is intended as an interim measure and
the ICANNATLARGE.COM Polling Booth may be used only
- as a means of gathering input so as to formulate draft
resolutions for later formal ballots by e-mail according
to the rules for such ballots, or
- for official organizational purposes for a period not to
exceed 60 days, during which time the organization will
draft, amend as needed, and ratify its bylaw concerning
the procedures for elections and referenda.

Assuming this motion finds a seconder, and assuming that only
members who actually post on this list are involved enough
to really care what happens, I would like to suggest that
for the time being, the quorum for a vote by the membership
on this particular motion should be set at 20 - roughly
two-thirds of the number of people who have stuck with this
list until now, if I'm any good at guessing.

Anyway, FWIW it's normal to require 2/3 of the number of
ballots cast in order to pass, amend or delete a bylaw,
and I can only hope people are willing to vote for
something which might help us out of the present impass.

Regards,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



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