Re: [atlarge-discuss] méthodes de travail normales,

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
To: <micheal@beethoven.com>
Cc: At Large Discuss <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] méthodes de travail normales,


> Micheal Sherrill wrote:
>
> >Hello Ron:
> >
> >You are shooting the messenger.  We are attempting to elect 11 people to
the panel and a goodly portion of those nominated have not contributed
whatsoever to this organization or, even worse, just joined a few weeks ago.
Now, I am all for getting this thing to move forward but trying to elect
ringers is moving forward off a cliff.
> >
>
> I agree completely.
>
> >
> >A 5 member panel will probably help us prevent a stacked panel.  That way
we can avoid the ringers and elect those that have worked so hard to keep
this group from collapsing.  Some are surly, yes, but at least I know them,
trust them, and should not have to worry that something does not come out
the back door of a Trojan Horse of a Panel.
> >
>
> Thanks Micheal!  I completely agree with you, as do many others.
>
> --Sotiris Sotiropoulos

I feel similarly on these points. We've had enough of this organisation
being hijacked, sidelined or derailed by panel members with their own hidden
agendas. The risk of people elected by default (just because we need to fill
up 11 places) is a real risk - and therefore it's essential that polling is
used immediately after this election to investigate, verify, endorse,
qualify, or re-define the outcomes we (the membership) desire from this
election.

We also need to safeguard the long-term future of this group by establishing
a control over the panel by the membership, so that the panel ONLY does what
the membership tells it to do... the membership should define the shape and
mandate of the new panel; the membership should define the mission and
objectives of the organisation; the membership should be able to exercise a
veto on specific issues.

Almost as soon as this election result is announced, we need to call on Joop
(in the absence of any other Poll) to set a Poll in motion and seek to
establish the primacy of "bottom up" decision-making in the hands of the
members. It is interesting to note that (to date) more people voted in
Joop's first Polls than have voted in this election. The Poll (or a process
with the same kind of outcomes) is an essential check on panelists who may
obfuscate or undermine our work.

Joop, are you willing to set out a series of questions, in the week
following this election, so the membership can endorse this election, or
re-define panel size, or define roles and mandates and objectives (whatever
the membership itself wishes)? I'm not trying to frustrate the steps forward
in getting a panel which works again, but I regard it as essential that this
time round the members themselves are empowered to define the mission,
define our relationship with ICANN, define our place of incorporation,
define our objectives, define what this next panel does and does not do.

For this purpose (and to establish beyond doubt the control over all these
things by the members themselves) I call on Joop if he is willing to set a
Post-Election Poll in motion. I will phrase a set of relevant questions
which others can add to if they wish.

Then, hopefully, we will have a renewed Panel, working proactively with an
empowered membership... and we can set out to do the one thing which ICANN
does not want... to establish and promote a *real* at large community, as
democratic as ICANN is autocratic, independent instead of orchestrated from
inside ICANN, and ready to actually get things done... things which the
empowered membership *insists* we get done.

Panel and members can work together on this... the squabbling can give way
to action... because once the membership defines what has to be done, the
scope for dissent is greatly reduced.

The embracing of a regular Members' Poll - binding on the panel - is a
priority for a resurgence of this organisation. Then we, the bottom-up,
democratic internet users of the world (as we grow) can demonstrate a real
alternative to ICANN's tired and cynical top-down vested interests and
phoney at large.

Richard H



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