RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/0209/msg00035.html

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Joey Borda wrote:

>I believe the matter of being elected to the panel in this case is
>irrelevant to our members. What is relevant is “trusteeship,” which can be
>vested, is being vested in two non-panel members as it is under your
proposal.

Yes, I believe that was the thought behind the idea when Richard presented
it.  However, I don't think this was intended as an indictment of any panel
member's integrity.  Rather, it was an attempt to add a higher level of
trust to the process, driven as always by a need to "keep the moral high
ground" and run our processes better than our experiences with ICANN.
That's why I agreed to serve when asked.

>The only thing that will be denied the panel member(s) is particular
>knowledge of how any given member voted

Yeah, that's the idea.  The panel will still get a complete count of numbers
voted for each option, and that's all anyone needs to know.

However, this brings up an issue: we still need to have a way to archive the
actual votes!  Maybe we need an official archivist?  Any thoughts on this,
anyone?  (And no, don't say "why don't you do it?" please!).

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon USA
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com 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