Re: [atlarge-discuss] New panel elections?

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

Judyth and all,

  Regardless of what Vittorio says, the panel obviously needs to be
replaced immediately.  The Joop-Poll, which I did not participate in,
at least clearly showed that.  It's just that simple.

  Now what isn't simple is how do we go about electing a
new "Panel" and under what sort of restrictions/constraints
should that panel be bound, or should we elect and Interim
set of directors?

  Personally, I feel that Richard has the right idea in that
it is time for representatives to be elected and the term of those
representatives be set before the election or as part of that
election, as a referendum commence ASAP.  This would
again mean that we need secure and independent Election
system/software as well as independent auditing of the
votes cast.  E-Mail voting could be used to achieve this,
but the present system that we have used ( Old DNSO GA
E-Mail voting ) has proven to be insufficient and prone
greatly to problems of legitimacy, as is well documented.

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 12:41 -0600 2003/02/09, Hugh Blair wrote:
> >My view: An OFFICIAL list of all the members should be gathered in one
> >place - I really don't care who holds it for now.
>
> I do care, I'm afraid. One member of the Panel should be our Interim
> Secretary, specifically charged with responsibility for
> - maintaining and updating the membership database
> - regular reporting of Panel decisions and membership statistics
> - sending out notices to all members of any upcoming elections
>   in good time and ensuring that the Panel remembers not all
>   members can respond instantly to their e-mail
> - keeping the personal information on members confidential
>   unless each member specifically authorizes its release.
> If this had been done (and it's pretty normal for any kind of
> group or association), we would be further along than we are
> with fewer disputes.
>
> >Another canvas, call
> >it a vote or a pole, at this time it doesn't matter, should be taken
> >of that list with one question:
> >
> >"Should the current Panel be disbanded and a new one elected. YES/NO"
> >
> >This could happen within a just a few days - no need to drag it out.
> >Voting should start 3 days after the notification of an upcoming vote,
> >and although I have some doubts about Joop's PollingBooth, we have no
> >alternative at the moment and it can be used for this action. Just to
> >be clear, I have *no* doubt about Joop's honesty, I just don't know
> >enough about the PollingBooth to feel totally comfortable with it.
>
> Here, too, I must disagree. Vittorio is on record as saying he
> will not be bound to respect the results of a vote held by
> anyone but the Panel itself because it's "dangerous".
>
> It is clear that even if we voted "Yes" at the Polling Booth he
> would dismiss the results. If other Panelists accepted the
> results and chose to resign to create vacancies, he would
> continue down the list of candidates who lost the last election
> and, if there were none left, would call an election to fill
> only the last few places ... on no authority but his own
> assumption that "democracy" is what happens when people are
> allowed to vote once for people who have no respect for the
> democratic process and live indefinitely with the results!
>
> Therefore, I call upon the present *Panel as a body* to implement
> a ballot by e-mail as was done for the choice of domain name,
> without further delay, on the resolution:
>
>   RESOLVED THAT the Panel immediately call for new
>   nominations for all positions on the Interim Panel
>   preparatory to calling a new Panel election no
>   later than April 1, 2003.
>
> If the motion carries, we have new elections. If it does not,
> Vittorio et al. can carry on until August under their current
> (self-defined) mandate while the rest of us write a clearer
> mandate for the next Panel.
>
> Under parliamentary procedure, this type of resolution is not
> undemocratic at all. When you believe a government has lost
> the confidence of its supporters, you call for a vote; if it
> passes, a new election is called, leading to a new government.
>
> >With this message I've noted my views. I call on the members to
> >reply to this with:
> >
> >1 - suggestions and changes, or
> >2 - a "YES" or "NO", telling this group how you feel about my ideas.
>
> A qualified "yes". I like your analysis and proposal for the
> candicacy process, etc. but there is no point doing this via
> the Polling Booth unless the Panel abides willingly by the
> result or we can agree to circumvent them if they don't.
>
> The (quasi-)official process is more cumbersome since it calls
> for the Panel to hold an e-mail referendum (which follows the
> process they chose earlier on) on something like my resolution,
> after which the election would either be moved up or not.
>
> The ballot -- at the Panel's discretion, it seems -- might or
> might not include the text of the previously-used election
> procedure, might or might not allow members to vote on whether
> that procedure is acceptable to them or whether they'd prefer
> the Web-based poll, etc.
>
> Under some model Constitutions which have been suggested for this
> group, the membership may itself call for a ballot of 10%-15%
> of the membership go on record as supporting the call. We don't
> have such a clause yet but I think we do need one and the means
> by which a membership resolution *must* be circulated to all
> members to determine the extent of the support it has.
>
> Thus far, our Panel has been unwilling to let us vote on such
> things but any potential panelist wanting my vote would do well
> not to stand on ceremony and claim we have no legal voice in these
> decisions. I believe a Panel acting in good faith cannot simply
> refuse to put this matter to a membership vote.
>
> >Now carry on with your Sunday,
>
> Sorry, Hugh, I just got this Tuesday morning!
>
> Struggling madly to keep up,
>
> 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

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