[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Thomas Roessler proposes elimination of current voting system for GA

Thomas and all stakeholders of interested parties,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-31 12:40:54 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>After all, the very construction principle of an at-large
> >>membership is to form a group of individuals - with no further
> >>structure.
> >I do not know who told you that, but it certainly is not my idea
> >to leave the At Large without any further structure. Without
> >structure, there cannot be any establishing of the majority's
> >will.  There can be no resolutions, no decisionmaking.
> You are misunderstanding me (and, actually, your interpretation of
> this one sentence contradicts the rest of what I said - that should
> have given you something to think about).  I'm not saying that an
> at-large membership should not set up processes and administrative
> structures.
> I'm just saying that the membership itself is not structured by,
> say, constituencies, professions, or the like.

  Well yes and no to this Thomas.  A membership CAN be
structured in any number of ways INCLUDING constituencies,
professions and the like...

>  For instance, an
> at-large membership should certainly _not_ give any special rights
> to, say, the representatives of the few firms running gTLD
> registries.

  Very much agreed.

>  Yes, it should be open for these individuals - but
> acting in their personal capacity, not in their professional one.

  Also agreed here to a point... And that point is predicated on
how it is structured per se...

> That is, an at-large membership initiative is a homogeneous body,
> and it makes sense to say that this group of individuals has come to
> this or that decision, on substance.  (Possibly, the homogeneous
> bodies are broken down to country levels at some point of time; so
> would votes in this time - but that's it, I suppose.)

  Ok good point here as well Thomas...

> If you look at my message to the GA list, that's precisely the test
> I suggested in order to answer the question whether secret votes are
> the appropriate tool: A homogeneous body, making decisions.
> I believe that the GA does not pass this test (after all, the DNSO
> _is_ organized by constituencies, as a matter of fact).

  Yes, which is the DNSO's biggest fault...

> To put it into friendly, capital letters: FOR THE GA, SECRET VOTES

  I disagree and your arguments above in NO way support this

> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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