RE: [atlarge-discuss] Election Preparation

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Judyth Mermelstein wrote:

Note: the draft message quoted here may be an older version.  My comments
will be based on the final draft approved on Wednesday.

|  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Joop, but your
|  Polling Booth poll was just that, not an official referendum
|  of ICANNATLARGE.ORG, and we have few enough rules in place
|  that it might be nice to follow them as far as they go.

Exactly.  Without a full vote of the membership, all we have is an
unscientific sample.  And while the outcome of that sample was compelling
enough to prompt Jefsey, Eric and myself to push for immediate elections,
the will of the membership will not be truely known until we ask them!

|  We can argue this until the cows come home but the fact
|  remains that Bruce, Jefsey and Eric agreed not to resign
|  and to make sure the election happens. They are not a
|  full Panel, of course, but that's why we're holding the
|  election! I agree the wording isn't ideal -- after all,
|  it was the membership which demanded a new election --
|  but I can live with it given that the "Acting Panel"
|  will cease to exist in few weeks when the new Interim
|  Panel will come into being.

Indeed.  That was the sole basis under which the three of us would even
consider staying on: to hold the election and ensure continuity of
leadership.

|  But there is nothing in the text of Bruce's message
|  to suggest that nominations are to be made on this mailing
|  list! On the contrary, the request for nominations and
|  questions for the ballot will be going to *all* members
|  (including those who register by the May 2 deadline) by
|  e-mail and - though perhaps this needs to be stated more
|  explicitly? - the said nominations and questions would
|  presumably be sent by replying to the message.

Exactly.  We will be polling the *entire* membership for nominations, and
the message clearly asks that they reply to submit both nominations and
questions they'd like to see asked on the ballot.

|  It might help, I think, if the message spelled out what,
|  if any, seconding process is envisaged for nominations.
|  Last time around, I think we did that on the list but
|  it might be sufficient to see who gets more than one
|  nomination.

Under Panel Nominations, the message states:

	3. Persons nominated by more than one person will be considered to
	   be seconded.  Those nominated only once will be identified on the
	   At Large Discuss list, and readers of the Discuss list will
	   be given the opportunity to second their nomination.  To
	   subscribe to the Discuss list, send an empty e-mail message to:
	   		atlarge-discuss-subscribe@lists.fitug.de

That seems pretty clear.  And virtually *anyone* can *post* to the Discuss
list.


|  One question I do have is about
|
|  >Mon May 5 		Deadline for nominees to accept
|  >0:00 GMT		Candidates will post their statement
|  online, and provide
|  >			a link to Bruce Young
|  (bruce@barelyadequate.info), who
|  >			will post the links on the Web site.
|
|  which reads as if anyone who is a candidate must have his
|  or her own Web site and only the links will be on the
|  ICANNATLARGE.ORG site. I would much prefer it if all of
|  the candidate statements were posted on the site itself

That would be preferrable, I agree.  But unfortunately we don't have a
current Webmaster that is familiar with the site, likle we did last
electionn.  And I frankly don't have the time to decode someone else's HTML,
Javascript, Perl, etc. etc. between now and May 5th!  As an alternative for
those who have no Web space of their own, I can set up a folder on my domain
and link to it there.  But realistically, virtually *every* ISP account
these days comes with at least a few megabytes of Web space, so I don't see
this as a major burden.

|  I'd *really* like it if a second message went out on
|  May 5 or 6 which listed the candidates and provided a brief
|  statement and contact information for each of them, especially
|  if there is no forum provided for asking questions of the
|  candidates publicly. (Now, that's where the group might
|  choose to avail itself of Joop's facilities and talents
|  and make the forum the official place for those questions
|  and answers!)

I have absolutely no problem with either idea.  Jefsey, and Eric might want
to chime in here!

|  If we're to avoid some of the problems we've had in the past,
|  it would help more to know about what people stand for than what
|  they do in their day jobs. If a forum isn't feasible and we
|  can't assemble private questions into a "Q&A", would it perhaps
|  be possible to ask candidates to fill out a questionnaire that
|  would indicate what they want this group to do and would promote
|  as Panelists?

No problem with this either.

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