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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] what most members want



Joop, Judyth and all fellow members,

  I believe that Joop is right that E-Mail ballots for voting is
not shared as the preferred method by which the members
choose to cast their votes.  Indeed, Joop is right that
such a method has proven too many times to be too
easily defrauded.  Hence such a method is at a minimum
inappropriate.  However the rest of Joops comments
are pure political commentary of little or no value...

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 06:05 a.m. 2/04/2003, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
>
> >It's also one of the reasons I believe an e-mail ballot is
> >preferable - one reaches more people fairly quickly and people
> >can respond more easily than by spending time looking at one
> >Web page after another. Some would disagree with me on that
> >but I think it is worth a try and could hardly get a lower
> >response rate than the recent poll.
>
> I hope you are aware of the fact that the voting members in majority think
> differently.
> Email ballot is not preferred.
> It is too easy to fake responses.
>
> > >>Polls are educational, but cannot take the place of an actual
> > >>election when
> > >>setting policy for this group, unless a clear majority of our members
> > >>participate.
> > >
> > >*Participation* by 500 members is an unrealistic  expectation to put
> > >it
> > >mildly.
> > >Laying out structure is an attempt to bring order into chaos, now made
> > >by
> > >the 99 or so most interested members.
> >
> >In my opinion, if we don't expect to get 500 active members,
> >we have no business trying to represent "Internet users" on
> >anything.
>
> It is our business to provide *the means* to hundreds (or thousands) of
> active members to become a representative cross-section of the internet
> users, interested in global internet "governance" issues.
>
> If we don't do it, the ALAC will  "represent"  the millions.  Is that what
> you want?
>
> >Obviously, not everyone is prepared to be equally
> >active as the "core group" but if we purport to speak for
> >over 500 million and aim (as we did) at 100,000 members
> >shortly after incorporating, an organization where fewer than
> >500 bother to cast votes would deserve to be dismissed as
> >irrelevant to Internet governance.
>
> No organization (except the INEGroup :))  is *born* with 100.000 members.
> Go ahead, dismiss the founding members as irrelevant.
>
> > >What the structure ends up to be is less important than *having* an
> > >undisputed structure (after 13 months of achieving nothing).
> > >Such structure could also have been proposed by 5 good willing
> > >bottom-up
> > >members, but 99 is a lot better.
> >
> >More than 5 people here have proposed various structures,
> >some of them bottom-up and some not. The problem is that
> >we weren't encouraged to discuss those issues in an
> >organized way and then vote on whatever seemed best after
> >discussion. It is the Chair (of a Panel, working group or
> >even an open discussion with lots of participants) who
> >normally states the agenda and ensures that orderly
> >discussion leads to decision leads to action.
>
> Correct. Having Panel and committee  Chairs (and no  fights about it) is
> part of the needed structure.
>
> > >*Policy setting* is done by the elected members who will be elected
> > >into
> > >that structure, each with specific mandate.
> >
> >You're taking quite a bit for granted there. Policy-setting
> >is *not* necessarily something one hands over with a "you decide
> >for us" to those elected to sit on a body within the organization.
> >Bottom-up organizations do indeed have committees which do the
> >research and drafting but policy is actually set only when
> >the members have ratified a resolution to that effect.
>
> I agree. My point was to speak to Bruce implying that policy -setting was
> somehow done by the latest membership polls.
>
> >Given that we've spent a year or so on "you decide for us" and
> >seen only that those elected were unable to work together in
> >any systematic way, I am sure in my own mind that we should
> >try a little "grassroots" democracy for a change.
>
> Do you not agree with what I have done  in that direction? Or do you feel
> that it should be your turn now to use the members address list?
>
> > >-Those who profess to believe in direct democracy pass the real test
> > >when
> > >they disagree with a result, but still respect it.-
> >
> >As I said in my comments at the Polling Booth, some of the
> >questions took a good deal for granted about the kinds of
> >options this group should be choosing.
>
> Judyth, you are politicking here. You yourself were specifically invited ,
> along with the watchers, to help phrasing questions and critique the
> proposed ones.
> You promised twice to come back  with a text contribution.
> Am I free to disclose the mails in which you did that?
>
> You did critique Walter's questions and they were amended accordingly in
> the Booth.
> Now you are pretending that you were not consulted?
>
> This whole list was made aware of the coming poll on structure and
> contributions were invited, a month before it was finally launched.
>
> >As others have said
> >more than once, the poll was just a poll, not a referendum
> >binding on this group - after all, this group neither set
> >the questions nor informed all its members on the issues.
>
> O.K. Let "this group" set the questions and inform all its members on the
> issues. HOW?
>
> >But I think we can use the results for the benefit of the
> >group by recognizing that we need to elect not only a
> >Panel but a Panel with a clear mandate to organize the work
> >and individual officers and directors with specific individual
> >responsibilities, who can keep the work progressing and
> >organize the rest of us into volunteer committees that
> >actually function.
>
> "We"  should feel  obliged to work within the results.
>
> >A larger number of members expressed their preferences at
> >the Polling Booth than have done so on this list. Maybe this
> >group should consider conducting an official follow-up poll
> >where more members can cast votes on specific proposals
> >rather than general questions?
>
> There were a few questions that were rather specific, such as
> webmaster/panel rules.
> It would be wise to consider these now ratified by the members, if only to
> prevent another website impasse.
>
> On the other hand, a YES or NO on specific proposals increases the danger
> of "leading" with questions and this should not be done by any single
> unelected individual, myself included, but only by an elected Polling
> Commission.
>
> >In any case, there seems to be a majority agreement here
> >that we want an election soon, and elections are meaningless
> >unless members are encouraged to nominate others or volunteer
> >for to fulfil particular mandates.
>
> Correct.
>
> >I'm perfectly willing
> >to let Bruce, Jefsey and Eric propose the necessary mechanisms
> >and timetable but hope that if the election is to be soon,
> >the mandates will be discussed and the call for nominations
> >drafted even sooner.
>
> Of course they may propose.
> As individual and respected members.
>
> As for discussing mandates, voting is supposed to end discussions, not
> start them.
> Discussion is needed where the vote outcome is marginal or unclear.
>
> Exhortations are all fine, but someone has to do the work of translating
> the members' wishes into a workable Constitution.
>
> In my opinion every member is free to start nominations for Web Panel,
> Polling Commission, membership committee, Executive or Walter's proposed
> interim Charter Bootstrap  Board.
>
> Now.
>
> If I can find the time, I fully intend to help fellow  members  with the
> nomination process by supplying lists of participating members eligible for
> nomination. Here, in the Forum and in the Booth.
> Those who have actively participated in the last two Polls would be my
> first choice, but any other volunteers should also be accepted.
>
> Let's get on with this election or the icannatlarge will remain headless
> and paralyzed.
>
> -joop-
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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