[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] UPDATE ON PANEL ACTIVITIES
Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
> My comments are below.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Hans Klein" <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] UPDATE ON PANEL ACTIVITIES
> > Hans and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
> > Hans Klein wrote:
> > > Dear Members of ICANNatlarge.com,
> > >
> > > Here are some notes on what is going on in various parts of our
> > >
> > > The Panel now has its full complement of members. The new panelists are
> > > Bruce and Edmundo.
> > >
> > > The Panel is working to develop a formal voting procedure. This will
> > > us to make decisions. We hope to have this by mid-week.
> > Ok is there a Working Group somewhere on this? If not, don't you think
> > that the members should be able to participate in this potential decision?
> > We know what all of the options are as they have been discussed
> > here several times now.
> > >
> > >
> > > WG-WEB is becoming active again. We are getting a new Coordinator.
> > We? Whom is that Hans?
> > > That
> > > person will initiate the process of reviewing web issues and making
> > > recommendations to the full Panel. The Panel can review the
> > > recommendations and make some final decisions. Thus, we are a few steps
> > > away from making any substantive changes to the web page.
> > Ok. Now, lets see here.... Oh yes, I believe these decisions are
> > outside of the Panel's mandate as the election of the Panel clearly
> > indicates, are they not? Hence I would propose that this WG-WEB
> > make recommendations and than the members vote on the process(s) and
> > proceedure(s) along with any large minority positions as to how,
> > who, what, and when to proceed... Than the members either approve
> > or not, or only approve by line item...
> I agree Jeff, but we don't want to get bogged down in details either. There
> has to be some trust involved given to those on the panel and to those
> selected to serve in a working group. I mean if I'm in wg-web for instance
> and a simple issue such as a coding choice comes up, the wg-web can solve
> that without putting it to a vote. Thats just an example, but we have to
> choose people we feel capable of making some minor decisions without holding
> a vote. I mean really, do we need to vote on the color of a background?
My comments above in response to Hans in no way suggests or should
seem to suggest that we should get too bogged down in Web page
details. SO no, no need to vote of background color! >:) ROFLMAO!
Pardon me Chris, but you are reading too much into what I stated...
> If members have suggestions on changes that can be done to the site, then
> the web-wg could take that suggestion and discuss it and make a decision.
I agree with this in principal.
> The same goes for the panel. They don't need to approve every move the
> web-wg makes either.
Also agreed here. But we do need to be careful that we don't have
what has happened with Joop and the ICANNATLARGE.COM
Web site and previous to that the IDNO.ORG web site...
> If you create working groups on any of the topics or
> tasks at hand that have to both get panel approval and put every decision to
> a vote then we will never complete any of the projects and continue to be as
> ineffective as some hope us to be.
This is outside the Panels mandate Chris. This is not what the Panel was
elected to do.
> Choose well, the people you ask to take on a task, then trust them to
> perform that task.
Very much agreed here!
> If you want to add suggestions and you chose well your
> suggestions will get proper consideration, but nothing done here will
> perfectly please everyone. Thats a fact we live with and everyone in any
> organization lives with, so we choose good people to perform a task and they
> do the best they can with that task. That is as close to perfection we can
Also agreed here.
> I'm all for democracy. But in a democracy, not everything is put to a vote.
Agreed here as well. But the content that reflects the nature ot this
organization and speaks for them, should have the members approval
before it is put up on the Web site. This of course would not include
most things, but it would some.
> We elect and choose representatives to make some decisions for the good of
> the whole. It doesn't always work out the way we want, but it's a better
> system than most and more efficient than putting everything you try to do to
> a vote.
I never said otherwise Chris. You again are greatly reading into what I said,
that is not there. Be careful of construing something said or posted to
that it is not...
> > >
> > >
> > > The Panel is waiting for an official report of the election results. It
> > > my understanding that "ICANNatlarge.org" was the preferred name. I have
> > > seen messages posted to this list, but I haven't seen an official
> > > communication to the Panel.
> > That ( official communication ) was posted by Walter I believe on
> > See archives: http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0209/msg00528.html
> > > A report was solicited from Walter Schmidt on
> > > September 27, but no reply has been received. (Walter and other
> > > -- can we please have a formal statement of voting results. You can
> > > it to me or to all panel members individually. Thank you!)
> > Walter already posted this publicly, as is proper, on Friday Hans.
> > See archives again: http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0209/msg00528.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Once the Panel receives the results of the name vote, it can use the
> > > procedure to decide the name of the organization. The panel seems to be
> > > leaning towards adoption of the top vote-getting name. We have not yet
> > > initiated a formal discussion. We will use the voting procedure to
> > > finalize the name decision.
> > >
> > > Once the Panel has decided on a name, and once WG-WEB is functioning,
> > > once the Panel has approved any changes to the web page, we can
> > > our new URL, based on our new name.
> > The name has already been decided upon by the members in the vote
> > Hans. Are you implying otherwise that the panel would change such
> > a democratically arrived at decision of the members? I hope not!
> Here I agree with Jeff. As I said before not everything needs to be put to a
> vote by the whole membership, but once a vote has been taken, the panel
> cannot do anything other than follow the mandate of the voting membership.
> The panel doesn't have veto power and I doubt that any bylaws trying to give
> the future BoD that power will be rejected by an almost unanimous vote.
> > >
> > >
> > > Currently, the panel does not have a Chair. As Alt Chair I am
> > > some Chair responsibilities. The Panel needs to decide on a new Chair
> > > is discussing that at present.
> > Good! Lets hope that the new chair will be cognizant of their
> > responsibilities and the limits of the mandate of the panel...
> > >
> > >
> > > The Panel is not currently discussing issues of fundraising, bylaws, and
> > > incorporation. Nor have we addressed an issue that is arguably prior to
> > > this: definition of a mission statement. I expect that we will address
> > > these issues soon. However, the other issues above are currently taking
> > > precedence.
> > The issues that the Panel was elected to do by mandate of that vote,
> > do not include anything outside of the Bylaws, charter and mission
> > Hence the Panel should and must complete those tasks.
> I agree. The mission statement has to be first, so we all and everyone
> outside this membership knows exactly what our purpose is. There can be no
> website that doesn't include the mission statement. When a client wants me
> to build them a website, I have to know what the website is about. If we are
> not "about" anything, then how can someone build the site? You want it to
> just be archives til then, fine, but it can't tell visitors what the at
> large is all about until we all have put into writing what it is all about.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is where we currently stand. Thanks for your patience in reading
> > > through all this!
> > No it is not really where "we" currently stand. I t seems that this is
> > you and a few panel members stand...
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Hans
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail email@example.com
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 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 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com