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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections

Joanna and all stakeholders of interested parties,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> > Our representatives in ALAC really MUST be subordinate to the main elected
> > executive of our organisation.
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> I sense that the new Panel would be more stable it were greater in number,
> closer to the 15 that ICANN proposes. The 7 members of the interim panel
> have proved insufficient in number to get things done expediently, and one
> cannot rely on every member being available 100% of the time at the whim of
> others.

  I believe at the time when reading the archives of this and the
At-Large ICANN that during the period this panel was suggested
or otherwise under discussion you were pretty emphatic about keeping
the Panel size small.  So I can only now surmise that in hindsight
you are reversing that thinking.  In any event, increasing the size of the
"Interim Panel" is too late to adequately implement as debate and
discussion would be lengthy, and somewhat non-productive at
this juncture.  It also seems to me that the term "Whim" in your
context is a bit negatively suggestive, as well as really not
addressing work load that needs to be accomplished.  So
without further adieu, perhaps getting on with that work would
be more productive at the present time...

> What I meant by "A slight flexibility/redundancy built in to the election
> process" is an election that would produce, from the
> outset, not only a united Executive, but also sufficient numbers of
> individuals with a mandate to "represent and speak for the membership", that
> could then, without having to call a further election, appoint a subset from
> amongst themselves, or delegate each other as representatives on ICANN and
> non-ICANN related issues, who could provide the "inside ICANN Committee" and
> the "outside ICANN Committee".

  One this would be a good idea.  However the "Inside-ICANN Committee"
as you put it here, is a bit premature as this ICANNATLARGE.COM
is not yet "Recognized" under the not "Black-and-Blueprint" to which
the ICANN BoD has just decided upon...  Ergo, it would seem that
unless or until that task is accomplished, the "Outside-ICANN-Committee"
would fair better as a vehicle by which to address needed reform
of the ICANN Reform, and Reform of ICANN part II...

> I sense that it would be sensible to mirror ICANN's Blueprint of a 15 person
> BoD.

  Bad idea, as most of the members of ICANNATLARGE.COM
have already stated early on that this is to be an independent
effort, and most of the members here would first need to
ratify the "Blueprint" before doing as you suggest if any
sense of ligitimacy to doing so could be claimed or otherwise

> Put another way, fight them by their own rules, like with like. We
> certainly don't need another election in 30 days time to replace those who
> may resign for one reason or another, or to appoint an AtLarge.com
> representative to the latest GNSO Task Force on dot.org, or Marilyn's
> Transfers Task Force or whatever.

  FIghting ICANN by their own rules has time and time again been met
with the ICANN BOD and staff just changing the rules just as they just
did in Buckarest, and in Santiago.  Hence this strategy is flawed
to a very great extent as such...

> Regards,
> Joanna
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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