[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Last Man Standing
Ron and all fellow members,
Ron Sherwood wrote:
> 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).
Very good and valid point here Ron. It is important that good representation
be those that have historic knowledge base in technical aspects of DNS.
That excludes most of the members or the this fledgling organization. Yet
the members should be able to elect whomever they wish of course..
>
>
> 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.
Also very true here as well Ron. Your on a roll it seems... >;)
>
>
> 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.
Any panel member should be able to respond to questions or requests
in the space of a day or they should resign and/or be required to resign.
As a CEO, I am required to do so as a matter of the definition of
my position.
>
>
> 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.
This is nonsense. I do so every day Ron. And INEGroup has far more
members than ICANNATLARGE.ORG does. If I can accomplish such
responsibilities than anyone else should be able to if the apply themselves.
>
>
> 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
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