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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all fellow members,

 I posted a week ago now I think, a comprehensive list of links
for each of the supposed Jefsey-candidates for his election
now seemingly underway.  Did you get or read that Richard?
If not it is in the archives and if you like I can post it again
along with follow-ups.  Please advise.

  I agree with you that this Jefsey-election was ill advised and
perhaps just a little bit premature.  I also had and still have
strong reservations regarding the security, accuracy, and
integrity of this Jefsey-election attempt.  Whatever the results,
given several in advance known problem areas, the members
may not be excepting.  This will or could further fracture
what we all I think would like to achieve for this fledgling
organization.  I hope that we can achieve ALL of what
all of us want to achieve as an organization.  But we
should/must do so with great care.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
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