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

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

Re Bruce:
> We need to continue with the initiative Danny started, and you have
amplified,
> to develop some basic by-laws to present to the membership for approval.
But
> the idea of getting the Panel and several other groups to build
"competing"
> bylaws sounds counterproductive to me.

Then we should initiate some form of' project management for these 'basic
by-laws'.
 A calendar schedule with a Table of Contence of objectives to be
reached/ratified
by the members, would easily suffice.

----- Original Message -----
From: <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] The Rights and Responsibilities of Voting...


> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> | My position all along has been that I want the
> | Membership to decide the whole direction of this
> | organisation, and that includes who should be panel members
>
> Which is what the election was all about.  I don't see the problem.
>
> | I favour the Membership being given the right to further
> | define what they want to do with these election results,
> | reviewing the process that has taken place, seeing how it
> | could be improved for next time, reviewing the appropriate
> | term of office for the new panel, and defining the mission,
> | tasks, mandate and objectives for the new panel, just so
> | there is no doubt about what the Membership wants.
>
> That's called "bylaws." :) That should be our forcus now.
>
> We need to continue with the iniative Danny started, and you have
amplified,
> to develop some basic by-laws to present to the membership for approval.
But
> the idea of getting the Panel and several other groups to build
"competing"
> bylaws sounds counterproductive to me.  Rather, we need to get a lot of
key
> voices from all sides of this issue involved in the process.  And we need
to
> analyze the questions answered by the membership and use them to gauge
thir
> attitudes on the various aspects of the organization, and reflect the
> majority views ijn the product we develop.
>
> | Now you may not agree with that approach, but I hope you will
> | accept that my sole interest is that the real wishes of the
> | Membership are given voice,upheld, and enforced.
>
> I understand.  I just think that the degree of direct member involvement
in
> the minutia of this organization is unwieldy, could lead to gridlock if
> factions develop that can't or won't agree, and leaves this group open to
> capture by a dedicated, voiciferous group of radical members with more
time
> on their hands than the rest of us!  Conversly, I think Danny's approach,
> with a very powerful central Board of Directors, goes to far the *other*
> way!  To my thinking, the optimal approach is in the middle somewhere: to
be
> responsive, and to avoid inaction, we need to give the Panel authority to
> act independantly within a narrow, succintly defined set of guidelines.
> Their work product, particularly things that set policy, would then be
> validated or rejected by a vote of the membership.
>
>
> Richard, although you and I differ somewhat in our approaches, I'd be more
> than willing to work with you, Danny, and anyone else on a Constitutional
> Convention for the purpose of drafting bylaws for our organization.
>
>
> 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
>
>



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