Re: [atlarge-discuss] The Rights and Responsibilities of Voting...

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Comments interspersed...

----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>
To: Atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>

> snipetty-snip >

> We decided to elect 11.
>
> When we saw most of us declining a nomination, the last thing we should
> have done is move forward, not changing anything.
>
> That is what we did.

I totally agree with you. At that point the whole election needed to be
reviewed and the pause button pressed.

>
> When we saw the bulk of any group-of-11 being unknown to us, the last
> thing we should have done is move forward, not changing anything.
>

This was a gamble... we don't yet know how the dice will roll...


> That is what we did.
>
> We now find ourselves with the need to obtain enough information about the
> (at least the 11) candidates in order to vote for the 11 candidates we
> would elect to our Panel.

Too late for that I fear! The vote is under way and many of the candidates
have submitted minimal or zero information about themselves. The process
needed to define some mandatory information from each candidate. But it's
too late now.





>The last thing we should do, is not do what the
> process, as it has proceeded, "demands" we do in order to ensure we elect
> the 11 people we believe best suited to move us forward.
>
> To do anything less, is to not fulfill the obligations our voting process,
> as we have allowed it to progress, requires of us


That presupposes we "allowed" it - I don't think we did... I asked for the
election to be stopped... I simply cannot vote arbitrarily for people I just
don't know... how can I "guess" what they're like... I can only vote for the
people I know, and some of the people I know, I wouldn't vote for!

> > How can I, or anyone else, know how those candidates feel about the
> > issues that we are to address?
>
>    ...that is what the pre-vote proceses are for, or in our case should
> have been. Since we allowed ourselves to be moved forward without being
> given enough information, it is now our responsibility to get it on our
> own.  Part of the cost of this process...

Didn't "allow" it... it was driven forward... on the issue of "getting the
information" on our own, I just don't think most of our membership will
invest the time and energy to track down people they don't know, ask them
discriminating questions, and form judgements on these responses. I just
don't see that happening. If the process itself does not produce that
information, and make it available *before* the voting starts, then it just
isn't going to happen for most people. In my view we must now (a) hope there
are sufficient intelligent and committed panelists elected to bring success
out of this compromised process; or (b) invest the membership with the power
of veto...

> snippety-snip
>

>
> "But he has nothing on at all, said a little child at last...But he has
> nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people...And (yet) they walked
> with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train WHICH DID NOT
> EXIST..."

Time will tell whether some individuals on the new panel can clothe this
organisation with credibility... I hope they can, because there are a few
candidates with clear insight and ability... but if not... if what follows
is further cacophony and lack of defined mission (like the panel I sat
on)... then the At Large just moves on on a number of other fronts, and
people will choose the outcomes and initiatives they believe in. What's
needed now is:

Clear definition of mission, aims, and specific tasks to be completed (with
time-limits)

Creation of a structure and web-presence which people can choose to buy into

Creation of interfaces with the world beyond: with other User orgs; with the
media; with ccTLD managers; with industry and politics; and yes (from the
outside) with ICANN.

But most importantly, having created the framework of an At Large
organisation, we need to create interfaces which reach out to thousands of
ordinary users.

The 'critical mass' of our membership needs to be extremely demanding that
this agenda is actually followed through by its panel, and we need to ensure
a "voice" for the membership - which is best achieved through democratic
process and a polling process.

We need to be driven, not by the people elected, but by the definition of
agenda by the whole membership, and the insistence on outcomes. Jumbled
mailing list exchanges cannot achieve this... we need the rigour of
democratic insistence which a polling process can offer. "We decide this,
therefore this is what will be done."

Walt, I think the *real* responsibility - given where we're at - is no
longer the voting process (which has already been seriously compromised) but
the sharp focus, precision and definition we need to bring to bear on "What
we shall do" and "When we shall do it" - all achieved with the sanction and
defining of goals by the membership itself. If the panel rejects the wishes
of the membership, it just ends up representing itself - and we move on from
there.

But it's time for sharp and precise action, or this group will just talk
itself into a perpetual catatonic state!

Richard H



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