[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
- To: Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Thomas Roessler proposes elimination of current voting system for GA
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:01:46 -0700
- CC: Joop Teernstra <email@example.com>, James Love <firstname.lastname@example.org>, atlarge discuss list <email@example.com>
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20020531070922.GO27077@yoda.does-not-exist.org>
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
> >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
> 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
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
> DON'T MAKE SENSE. FOR AN AT-LARGE MEMERSHIP THEY PROBABLY ARE THE
> APPROPRIATE TOOL. BUT THAT'S NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE.
I disagree and your arguments above in NO way support this
> Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
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.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com