RE: [atlarge-discuss] Call for Membership to define role of new panel

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Richard Henderson wrote:

|  I suggest we wait and see the outcome of this election, and then poll the
|  membership to
|
|  (a) verify their acceptance of the published results
|  (b) state whether they want to set limits on the period-in-office of the
new
|  panel (to 3 months/6 months/9 months etc)
|  (c) determine whether the membership is happy with the electoral outcome,
or
|  whether they want to limit the size of the panel (to 5 members/7 members
|  etc)
|  (d) define the mandate and objectives for the new panel (creating an
|  electoral commission/ broader mandate)


Richard, I'm puzzled.  We are currently having an election of the
membership.  So now you are calling for another election of the membership
after that to validate the choices they made in the first election?  Why?

As for your other questions, they are certainly appropriate (I for one think
a smaller-sized Panel would be more effective), and will need to be
addressed.  But can we please give the new incoming panel a break and let
them set their own agenda?

As for shorter term limits, given that it takes two months to conduct an
election, if we move to a six-month term of office, we'll be in perpetual
election mode, two-on, four off!


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!



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