Re: [atlarge-discuss] "Common Sense" Re: MOTION! Panel Members! Speak Out NOW!

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

Jefsey and all fellow members,

  I am sorry to say that you Jefsey, and Judyth have only led to
instability recently.

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> At 07:18 05/04/03, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
> >Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >| Bruce, if you can do it, go for it.  I'll gladly step back. You,
> >|  Jefsey and | Eric have just as much right to organize an election as I,
> >| Judyth and Richard. (for example)
> >
> >Thanks for the endorsement.  But there will be enough work for everyone, I
> >suspect.  And I'm hoping that the new Panel will give your polling booth a
> >regular workout.  I'm thinking monthly polls on the issues of the moment.
>
> I suppose that we will resolve all the details in a final motion of the
> Panelists. But IMHO our only service to this community is to serve
> its legitimacy for its future stability. This should comme in gathering
> with us all who are dedicatedlyb involved and to build for the future.
> Judyth, Jan, Joop, Abel IMHO are the first one.
>
> >| I consider myself as one trying to further the cause of
> >|  holding meaningful elections and I see vociferous and sometimes
> >|  petty and far-fetched objections to my actions.
> >
> >I know.  And you've kept the momentum going.  Thank you for that.
>
> idem.
>
> >| Ignore that "indicator" at your (and our) peril.   As far as new
> >|  elections is concerned, it is a demand.
> >
> >I know.  That is why Jefsey and I have been pressing forward ever since that
> >initial poll, to get elections going.  Vittorio's exit, and his machinations
> >with the membership list and Web admin keys, delayed everything and threw an
> >air of suspicion over the whole process that we're still not out from under!
> >I'm hoping that our doing exactly what we say we intend to do will help
> >restore some level of confidence.
>
> Fully concur. Today my only target is to help and retire when things
> have been democratically and openly stabilized.
>
> >| But by all means, try to get a higher participation rate.
>
> total agreement. And this is where we have to join all forces.
> As Panelist we bring a part of the possiblity to do something.
> You and others bring other part. I call on Jeff and Hugh to bring
> their own part.
>
> >That is my intent: to include your poll questions in the ballot.  More to
> >come on that in a separate message.
> >
> >|  Good. Are you going to repeat the key question then, if the
> >|  members want a single Do-all Panel of if they want a division of Power?
> >
> >Yes.  Actually, I expect that, once all the inputs are in from the members
> >(right now our intent is to solict questions along with nominations in a
> >single letter.
>
> My advise is to strictly follow the last vote rules so no one
> objects on changes. And to add your and everyone question
> so this Panel knows what you did not know: what the Members
> want. I suspect that will make it impossible for them to move
> without the full agreement of the community.
>
> As you know I share many of your positions regarding parties
> and functional structures. I add my own positions about local
> structures and community outreach and flexible relations
> between structures. But this is not a point for today, except
> that we are to permit it to happen in not pushing for it now.
>
> >| Are you going to get a VOTE on what size of web Panel the members want?
> >|  I hope you will get more than 100 votes.
> >
> >Yes.  Again, my intent is to push to have the questions as part of the same
> >ballot we use to elect new Panel members, so we will have some specific
> >guidance with which to build our bylaws.
>
> Joop, we need the Members to VOTE on several other issues as well.
> The three members Panel left cannot decide such a vote. Se we are
> to elect a full 11 persons Panel (so there is no dispute) and make sure
> they are bound to organize such VOTES professionnally and quick.
>
> My main fear is that we have a new Panel and start again the inept
> Chair rulling we known with our three Chair. We need a moderator,
> a stewart, a servant. Not an unilateral king. As we have no way to
> know who will be elected, we need to force him/her to be professionnal
> in forcing the Panel to move the way we want.
>
> We have no way to change the duration of the mandate without
> creating more problems. But it should be made clear through the
> questions and responses that this is something which is going
> to be decided by voters.
>
> >| Please quote from any of my postings how I am "dead-set against
> >|  the idea of elections".
> >
> >Perhaps that was poorly worded.  The point I was trying to make was that
> >everyone wants new elections, but seemed to object to anyone who was
> >standing up to make them happen!
>
> I read Joop as saying he wants changes. We all want them.
> But only the Panel elected to that end can propose them and
> make them voted. As soon as Vittorio refused to refill it, we
> needed a new election to refill it. With a new Panel we can
> proceed with what you/we wich/want to happen.
>
> >| Having a MOTION turn into a resolution when you have no quorum is one of
> >|  those actions that can bring an ICANNite to a position of officiality.
> >
> >I have no intention of doing anything further other than conducting a
> >successful elections.  Period.
>
> That motion was only requested by Judyth who had entraepped
> herself into not accepting the last motion of Vittorio we had voted.
> Today the Panelists are just "the last one elected to get the
> Panel refilled through an election". Full agreement with Bruce.
>
> >| -Those who profess to believe in direct democracy pass the real
> >|  test when they disagree with a result, but still respect it.-
> >
> >Agreed.  In this case I feel our current actions -- to hold an election --
> >are in agreement with the wishes of the membership.
>
> Full agreement.
>
> >I'm hoping everyone can
> >please stop complaining about *how* the elections came to pass and provide
> >positive inputs to help us make them successful!
>
> Full agreement.
> jfc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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