Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [Panel] Votes missed - and what steps do we take now...

["A/S Mauro D. Ríos" <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>]

Dear All,

"I would like to know all your opinions on his statement (Abel)".
I respond to the invitation of Abel ...

Each elect member of the Panel represents the small but active mass of
members that he voted for them. Above any point, each panelist safeguards
the interests of ALL the members, but without doubts he should consider her
direct voters.

The mass of members that voted in the elections gave its vote of trust to a
group of members, those votes established an order of  "trusts" that cannot
be changed, except for another election.

This mass of members that voted, also went overwhelming when saying that
wanted a Panel of 11 members, these 11 seats should be covered with the
members that were voted and respecting the order that the members have
determined, not in any other way.

It is TRUE that the Panel will only have authority on how and when he will
be able to or not to replace a member of the Panel once they are approved
the statutes, but an elect member that it "doesn't exist" in the facts, I
believe, it doesn't deserve many reflections.

Yes I AGREE COMPLETELY that, when not existing statutes, it should be
consulted to the mass of members if the arguments adopted by the panelists
to say that one of their elect panelists doesn't exist in the facts, are
correct or shared by the mass of members. This mass, that is to say all we,
will say to the Panel if we share the arguments and if we give the seen good
to consider a vacant place. But this cannot change that I have tried to
remind them in the previous paragraphs.

Lastly, a "netocracy" is since an absurd concept it doesn't gather
absolutely more than a term of fantasy to try to consider what we don't even
know how to classify. The democracy can have its variants, but it doesn't
desist of being democracy for that we apply it inside or outside of
Internet. Perhaps many are allowed to take for a concept of too indirect
democracy as that of U.S.A., where who votes he doesn't choose their
representatives directly, an example that is not applied in almost any
country of the rest of the world.

greetings
Mauro. -
...............................................

[ES] Cada miembro electo del Panel representa la pequeña pero activa masa de
miembros que votó por ellos. Por encima de cualquier punto, cada panelista
salvaguarda los intereses de TODOS los miembros, pero sin dudas él debe
considerar a sus votantes directos.

La masa de miembros que votó en las elecciones dio su voto de confianza a un
grupo de miembros, esos votos establecieron un orden de "confianzas" que NO
puede ser cambiado, excepto por otra elección.

Esta masa de miembros que votó, también fue contundente al decir que quería
un Panel de 11 miembros, estas 11 sillas deben ser cubiertas con los
miembros que fueron votados y respetando el orden que los miembros han
determinado, no de ninguna otra forma.

Es verdad que el Panel sólo tendrá autoridad sobre cómo y cuándo él podrá o
no reemplazar un miembro del Panel una vez que se aprueben los estatutos,
pero un miembro electo que "no existe" en los hechos, creo yo, no merece
muchas reflexiones.

Sí estoy COMPLETAMENTE DE ACUERDO que, al no existir estatutos, se debe
consultar a la masa de miembros si los argumentos adoptados por los
panelistas para decir que uno de sus panelistas electos NO existe en los
hechos, son correctos o compartidos por la masa de miembros. Esta masa, o
sea todos nosotros, diremos al Panel si compartimos los argumentos y si
damos el visto bueno para considerar un lugar vacante. Pero esto no puede
cambiar lo que he tratado de recordarles en los párrafos anteriores.

Por último, una "netocracy" es un concepto absurdo ya que no reúne
absolutamente más que un término de fantasía para tratar de considerar lo
que aun nosotros no sabemos cómo clasificar. La democracia puede tener sus
variantes, pero no desiste de ser democracia por que la apliquemos dentro o
fuera de Internet. Tal vez muchos se dejan llevar por un concepto de
democracia demasiado indirecta como la de U.S.A., donde quien vota no elige
él directamente a sus representantes, un ejemplo que no se aplica en casi
ningún país del resto del mundo.

saludos
Mauro.-


----- Mensaje original -----
De: JFC Morfin @large
Para: abel@able-towers.com ; panel@mailman.icannatlarge.org
CC: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
Enviado: Lunes, 07 de Julio de 2003 10:15 p.m.
Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [Panel] Votes missed - and what steps do
we take now...


Dear Abel,
you are worrying too much. And too much big words are used. This is NOT a
democracy. We are trying to understand how netocracy works.

Panelists have NOT been elected as representatives. They have been
supported to carry the job of supporting this community. Only the currently
most supported ones who accept it, are members of the Panel. I certainly
think that Panelists overdo it, thinking of themselves as an @large Senate
with some powers. You are not reps, you have no poewe on the Members, you
are community keepers.

Now, this means that you cannot oust anyone. BUT you can certainly observe
that someone has de facto quitted. You just set-up the minium constraints
that all of you accept and no one object (consensus). If one does not
respect them: he puts himself out of the Panel. And you replace him.

jfc





At 01:29 08/07/03, Abel Wisman wrote:

>In light of the discussion on the general list and the answer received
>from Michael Sherril I would like to know all your opinions on his
>statement:
>
><quote michael>
>The Panel does not have power to replace panel members at will.  They
>have power to oust a panel member for specific reasons, one of them
>being for non-participation in panel business.
>
>To a certain extent panel members have the right to govern themselves.
>There is a long precedent regarding this procedure including the United
>States Legislature, city councils, planning commissions, school boards,
>and the like.
>Their internal laws are quite specific regarding censure, removal from
>office, and appointing a leader.  It is not
>unreasonable to allow our own Panel the ability to do so, as well.
></quote michael>
>
>Now my opinion is at first sight that this is againt my democratic
>schooling and principles, and that IF we allow ourselves this "power" we
>better be darned sure that we are able to defend such a decision.
>However I do feel that this is the best and least "messy" solution to
>our problem, after all we already agreed on rules of no participation,
>rules that can be further defined should we wish, and there is a clear
>measuring stick to which we can hold such a decision as panel.
>
>Please let me know what you feel about this.
>
>Kind regards
>
>Abel
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/03


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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