[atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] New panel elections?

[bruce@barelyadequate.info]

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

|  From one side, it is evident that a good part of the panel has decided
|  to neglect their original commitment, or doesn't believe any more in
|  the organization, or whatever - but they have stopped participating,
|  up to the point of almost paralyzing the panel's activity.

Indeed.  But the general non-constructive participation of the membership
also contributed to the current paralysis.

|  It is true that we may replace them with the next in line from last
|  elections, but we still have to understand whether the new ones would
|  be more motivated and active, and the more original members you
|  replace, the weaker (politically) the panel will be.

IMO, this would be a waste of time.  If we're going to hold early elections.
Let's get on with it.

|  From the other side, it is also true that if we believe in democracy,
|  we have to believe in its rules; and that it is very dangerous to let
|  democratically elected bodies be dismissed by the pressure of a
|  self-organized mass effort.

This entire organization is the result of a self-organized mass effort, in
direct respons to ICANN killing off the At Large.  I think that bottom-up,
grassroots activities should be the heart of this organization.

|  This poll was conducted unofficially and
|  without having been approved by the organization, so while I have no
|  reason to say that its results aren't true, I also have no reason to
|  say that they can represent a binding direction to the panel.

What is "official" in an organization without bylaws?  Until we have them in
place, everything, other than the few rules we habve codefied so far, is
just "rule of thumb."  We dare not discount Joop's poll, since, regardlss of
how it was organized, the people voting were *our members!*  Is their
demonstrated will less valid solely because it stems from a process the
Panel did not put into place?  On a moral level, at least, I have to say
no."  And since we don't really *have* a legal basis yet . . . !

|  Moreover, the panel was also due to accomplish targets that,
|  presently, seem to be unrealistic, because there's plenty of
|  disagreement on what they are and how they are to be reached, and
|  total scarcity of people actively willing to pursue them. So it is
|  true that a replacement panel would perhaps only delay the problem and
|  let the organization lose some more months.

Yes.  All replacing the panel does is turn back the clock.  I seem to
remember trying that stategy once already!  :)

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