RE: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] Re: [atlarge-discuss] WE HAD A DREAM, WE HAVE A PROBLEM

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

|  Because they are going to act as watchdogs for the next elections, and
|  so they will not be candidates and they are not seeking power inside
|  the organization.

I don't remember stating I would not being a candidate, nor do I remember
reading such a statement from Jefsey.  In fact, I specifically remember
calling to have *members* serve as watchdogs, not panel members, to avoid
any appearance of impropriety.  I think I understand your intent here, but
don't appreciate having you make decisions for me.  I imagine Jefsey feels
the same.

|  It seems to me that there is a consistent part of our membership which
|  is not recognizing the authority of the panel any more - and while I
|  still can't see no valid reason why a self-called part of the
|  membership should overcome the elected panel, it is also true that the
|  panel was never meant to see 8 members on 11 resign and yet continue
|  working.

Let's correct this right up front: the mass Panel resignations were not an
inditment of the Panel by the membership, they were an abandonment of the
membership by specific panel members!

|  So we need elections to re-establish who is legitimate to decide
|  anything about this organization (including incorporation or who gets
|  the members' emails) and my target is to get such elections happening
|  as soon as possible, without breaking the organization in two, as it
|  would possibly happen if I gave the membership list either to Jefsey
|  or to Joop.

So your actions are based on distrust?  What, pray tell, led you to this
state?  I could understand it if you distrusted the Panel members that
abandonded the fight.  But how do you conclude their actions color those of
us who remain?  Or that we are less trustworthy somehow because of *their*
failing to carry out *their* responsibilities.  Jefsey and I have
continually stated our desire to move forward with this election.  Why does
this bother you?

|  If anyone has objections about the choice of Judyth and Jan as
|  watchdogs, it's fine and let's discuss, but I think that giving such
|  fundamental data to the watchdogs for the next election, rather than
|  to any part which wants to win control of the organization at the next
|  elections, is the best thing to do for the organization's sake.

No complaints about either person.  But how does this statement jive with
your earlir one, quoted above, that Jefsey and I would be watchdogs?

I'm trying very hard not to read anything into the circumstances that prompt
these questions.  But questions are all I have at this point, since logic
seems to have abandoned this process.

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