Re: [atlarge-discuss] Last Man Standing

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Dear Danny:

Your point is valid from the participation perspective, but I think that if
we are to limit the choice of panelists to those that a) understand the DNS
issues, b) have discussed them with ICANN representatives and c) are willing
to serve as panel members, we would have to limit the number of panel
members to the number of fingers on one hand (with some amputations).

Surely the real problem is not a list of nominees who have the skills, the
track record, and the will to discuss the issues with ICANN (and others) and
who could adequately represent our membership; but rather who among that
fine group has the time, the patience and the stamina to wade through the
daily minutiae and administrative bickering encountered on this list.

What is needed is a structure that permits members to make their views known
and debated in open forum, while leaving the administrative panel free to
get on with the duties associated with their office.  As long as any member
is permitted to criticize every action of every officer every day, and
expect instant responses and immediate course changes (often with demands
for resignation if the panelist fails to respond), we will never have a
panel that can achieve anything.

To seriously evaluate and respond to four thousand emails a year would be
hard to handle for a paid professional with nothing else to do.  For a
volunteer officer, who's valuable spare time and energy should be spent in
creating and growing an interested and participatory membership. And then
representing that membership viewpoint at the highest levels of a global
communications structure, the task is impossible.

Ergo, immersion in the daily dialog is counterproductive to the performance
of panel tasking.

Surely we can create a structure that permits the panel (or an appointed
panel member) to promote adopted policy on any given issue.  All it needs is
for any group of members to discuss any particular issue in open forum,
agree on one of their number to relate their consensual viewpoint to the
panel, and be clear enough in their policy decision for its merits to be
discussed in a forum limited to dialog between the issue presenter and the
panel.

The benefits of such a structure would be:

a) to isolate each issue and avoid muddying the water
b) permit any member with an opinion on that issue to participate in that
discussion
c) ensure that there is a clear consensus on the policy statement
d) limit panel involvement to discussion of the final policy statement with
the policy makers representative
e) provide a clear final policy statement to be approved by membership vote
f) require that the panel (or designated panel member) represent the
membership based upon that clearly stated policy
g) permit our panel to do the work entrusted to them without the need to
debate every issue at the grass roots level

Surely this system would lead to a far greater participation by a larger
percentage of the membership.  Plus an environment that would attract a
larger number of qualified people to run for panel membership.

Sincerely, Ron Sherwood

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Last Man Standing


> As you go into this nomination cycle, ask yourself if you would ever elect
> anyone that hasn't bothered to participate on this discussion list...
>
> So, who are the stalwart souls that have remained to put forward
> contributions?
>
> A review of the last six weeks worth of discussion reveals only the
following
> "member" participants:
>
> 01.  Jan Siren
> 02.  Eric
> 03.  Bruce
> 04.  Judyth
> 05.  Hugh Blair
> 06.  David Farrar
> 07.  Jefsey
> 08.  Joey Borda
> 09.  Joop Teernstra
> 10.  todd glassey
> 11.  Stephen Waters
> 12.  Walter Schmidt
> 13.  Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 14.  Holger Steiner
> 15.  Micheal Sherrill
> 16.  Jkhan
> 17.  Richard Henderson
> 18.  Norbert Klein
> 19.  Ron Sherwood
>
> and, of course, we cannot forget
>
> 20.  Jeff Williams
> 21.  Yue You Fidget
> 22.  Albert Brickel <nonukesnokooks@yahoo.com
> 23.  Larry Fuss <fussman2003@yahoo.com
>
> You might want to ask yourselves this question as well... Which of these
> members have ever discussed DNS-related issues and have bothered to
> communicate their views to the decision-makers within ICANN?  If they have
no
> pro-active track record, then why should you bother electing them?  Is
their
> goal the improvement of the DNS or are they motivated by other
> considerations?  By the time that you're through with that assessment, ask
> yourself if you even have eleven remaining candidates that would be
suitable
> to serve as panelists.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de