[atlarge-discuss] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: you response is urgent

["Jkhan" <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>]

Bruce & Joop,



In addition to these, the ' Icannatlarge Open Source Constitution ' was
Nominated and

 atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; webmaster@pollingbooth.info;
webmaster@icannatlarge.com had been properly NOTICED.

(also see: icannatlatrge.com/forum/Third Panel Election, Nominations and
seconds )



I  have reservation with regards to the procedures recently exorcized. There
is no reason to suppress the Freedom of Speech, regardless if it is
transmitted through a Human 'Candidate' or 'Doctrine of Popular
Sovereignty'. Both are Candidates and deserve placement on said Election
Ballots.  The protection of human rights and freedoms based on the World
Constitutions and the laws, in accordance with the principles and norms of
International Law, guarantees these Rights.



The ratification of the Icannatlarge Open Source Constitution as a 'Doctrine
of Popular Sovereignty' is no different that the ratification of a Human
Candidate. This said ratification process has been engaged herein by the
Icannatlarge Community.

-

It has been nominated, and should be able to take its place among the
Candidates to be incorporated into the forthcoming Ballot.



James Khan


-- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: <bruce@barelyadequate.info>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [Atlarge] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: you
response is urgent


> At 05:40 p.m. 4/05/2003, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
> >Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> >|  Not allowing for seconding gives far too much power to the nominator.
> >
> >Who said nomination needn't be seconded?
>
> Your Polling Officer (and primary Nominator of a rather ridiculous (or
> Machiavellian) list of candidates), Jefsey Morfin said this.
>
> (message dated  May 2)
> "2. the nominees do not need to be seconded (however all those we listed
> together are, what is good)"
>
> I appreciate your original message and perhaps you can work this out with
> him, so that we end up with a proper slate of candidates.
>
> >The message that went out
> >requesting nominations clearly said otherwise, to wit:
> >
> >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.
>
> *All*  members should have that right. They do not have to accept
> un-seconded candidates. We need candidates that have a minimum of support.
>
> That acceptances can be made  to a private address and then published (or
> not) is also wrong when acceptances can and should  be made publicly.
>
> To answer Hugh's question: I hesitate because I am very reluctant to
> endorse such a procedure.
>
>
>
> -joop-
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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