[atlarge-discuss] Let's get back to the root issue!

[bruce@barelyadequate.info]

Judyth Mermelstein wrote:

| Actually, in the U.K., Canada and other parliamentary democracies,
| there *is* a more-or-less bottom-up method of dissolving a session
| and forcing a new election. It is called a "vote of non-confidence"
| and normally occurs when the House of Commons rejects the
| government's budget or other major legislation.

That is how I view the poll.  However, to follow the forms, an actual vote
should still be held to validate it.

| That being said, I don't think an unofficial polling process can
| be considered to constitute a vote of non-confidence,

I agree with this.

| and we don't have a constitution yet so Panelists evidently feel free
| to do as much or as little as they like.

That's readily apparent.  And unfortunate.

However, I must say that all of this arguing about Panel resignations and
early elections has detracted from the root issue: we were suposed to have
an election to gauge our membership's will as to the focus of this
organization.  We still need to have it.  There is no reason why the key
focus subjects of Joop's poll couldn't be incorporated into the same vote as
Panel elections.



Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
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